m 


ili 


i\i^i.1liUi 


;'l    ^  -'t'^^^O^ff'  •S< 


«iJ 


;'''H}t) 


^C;'#M 


^^'r^' V 


r^ 


i 


BX  6155.5  .C35  S4  1889 
Canright,  Dudley  Marvin, 

1840-1919. 
Seventh-day  Adventism 


*-  r\  1-1/^1 1  mj^^a./^_ 


Seventh-Day  Adventism 
Renounced. 


By  ELDER  D.  M.  CAN  RIGHT. 

Testimonials. 


The  work  of  a  specialist  is  highly 
valued  when  his  particular  line  is  un- 
der investigation. 

This  work  is  the  product  of  many 
years  of  careful  study  by  a  specialist 
on  the  history,  methods  and  doctrines 
of  Seventh- Day  Adventists.  For 
twenty-eight  years  I  was  intimately 
associated  with  that  people,  as  mem- 
ber, minister,  writer  and  author  and 
aided  much  in  building  up  that  work. 
I  joined  them  only  fourteen  years 
from  their  beginning,  hence  became 
well  acquainted  with  all  its  founders, 
their  early  theories,  and  have  all 
their  first  books  published  during  the 
first  forty  years.  Am  perfectly  fa- 
miliar with  every  argument  they  use 
and  the  answer  to  it.  I  know  their 
inside  history  and  weak  points  as 
others  could  not.  It  is  a  complete 
text  book  on  that  subject.  Here  is 
what  competent  judges  say  who  have 
read  and  used  it : 

"On  some  subjects  there  is  one 
book  that  stands  so  far  above  all 
other  books  on  the  same  subject  that 
if  a  person  has  that  one  book  he 
needs  no  other  on  that  subject. 
Canright's  '  Seventh-Day  Adventism 
Renounced '  is  just  such  a  book.  It 
is  a  complete  and  perfect  exposure 
of  that  delusion  from  beginning  to 
end.  Adventists  have  attempted  no 
reply  to  it  for  the  simple  reason  that 
they   cannot,   so   they  are   trying  to 


throw  doubt  on  his  character  and 
standing,  but  that  also  is  a  hopeless 
task.  If  you  are  troubled  with  Ad- 
ventism, get  tins  book.  Read  it; 
study  it ;  lend  it ;  confront  them  with 
it;  insist  on  them  meeting  it,  and 
you  will  have  no  more  trouble  with 
them." — Southland  Evangelist,  Hart- 
worth,  Texas. 

"  It  is  the  best  book  I  have  ever 
seen  on  the  subject,  after  a  study  of 
it  for  twenty  years." — Rev.  Wm. 
Armstrong,  Canton,  Pa.,  Genessee 
Conf.  of  M.  E.  Church. 

"  It  is  a  very  full  discussion  of  the 
question  on  which  Adventists  differ 
from  us." — Baptist  Christian  Herald^ 
Detroit,  Mich. 

"  It  is  a  thorough  exposure  of  this 
modern  delusion.  How  any  system 
of  error  can  survive  such  an  expo- 
sure will  be  a  mystery.  This  book 
ought  to  be  circulated  in  every 
community  where  Adventism  is 
preached." — Christian  Oracle  (Dis- 
ciple) Des  Moines,  Iowa. 

"  I  am  delighted  with  it.  It  is 
kind,  candid,  careful,  correct  and 
comprehensive.  I  heartily  commend 
the  work  as  the  best  that  has  yet 
been  published  on  that  subject."— 
Prof.  D.  R.  Dungan,  President  ol 
Drake  University,  Des  Moines,  Iowa. 

"  He  exposes  with  unsparing  logic, 
but  never  with  malice,  the  errors  of 
Seventh-Day  Adventism.  This  book 
is   eminently   fitted   to  do  good." — 


TESTIMONIALS. 


Rev.  Kendall  Brooks,  D.  D.,  ex- 
President  of  Kalamazoo  College, 
Mich. 

"  I  did  not  know  that  it  was  pos- 
sible to  give  so  perfect  an  answer  to 
the  letter  of  Adventism.  I  have  al- 
ways felt  that  its  spirit  was  contrary 
to  the  Gospel.  Your  exposure  is 
doubtless  the  ablest  and  most  com- 
prehensive in  existence."  —  Rev. 
Theodore  Nelson,  LL.  D.,  late  pres- 
ident of  Kalamazoo  Baptist  College. 

*<  I  pronounce  it  simply  overwhelm- 
ing."— Rev.  B.  F.  Whittemore,  Prin- 
cipal of  Lester  Seminary,  Holden,  Mo. 

"  Your  work  is  a  book  we  have 
long  needed,  and  now  should  be  in 
the  hands  of  every  Christian." — Rev. 
J.  Cairns,  Colfax  College,  Wash. 

"It  is  a  grand  book." — M.  McLel- 
lan,  Melbourne,  Australia. 

"  No  other  book  has  fallen  into 
our  hands  that  is  so  well  adapted  to 
meet  the  sophistry  and  statements  of 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  as  this." — 
Central  Free  Will  Baptists^  Farm- 
ington,  W.  Va. 

<'  The  most  effective  work  that  has 
yet  been  published." —  Missionary 
Visitor. 

"  It  would  be  a  good  plan  to  place 
a  copy  of  it  in  every  circulating  li- 
brary in  the  Xzxi^:'— Methodist  Mich- 
igan Christian  Advocate,  Detroit. 

"  A  strong  and  vigorous  book  on 
Seventh-Dayism.  The  best  thing 
published  upon  this  subject." — 
Chicago  Standard,  Baptist. 

"  An  interesting  and  valuable 
book." — Central  Baptist. 

"  There  is  no  other  book  in  the 
market  that  can  possibly  fill  its 
place." — California  Christian  Ad- 
vocate, Methodist. 

"  It  is  complete  and  unanswer- 
able."— Northern  Christian  Advo- 
cate. 

"A  very  valuable  book  that  ex- 
poses in  a  sharp  and  effective  way 
the  pretensions  of  modern  Advent- 
\lisa,%^-^Arkamcis  Baptists 


"  A  stalwart  book  which  gives  no 
uncertain  sound.  This  is  the  first 
book  which  we  have  seen  that  ably 
and  justly  exposes  to  the  world  the 
true  inwardness  of  the  Seventh-Day 
Advent  delusion." — Rev.  G.  J.Travis, 
Ph.  D.,  Baptist. 

"  It  is  by  far  the  most  complete  and 
satisfactory  treatment  of  the  subject 
that  I  have  seen." — Rev.  J.  Sunder- 
land, Baptist  Cor.  Sec.  and  Supt.  of 
Missions,  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

"The  work  is  a  trenchant  and 
conclusive  expose  and  refutation  of 
the  doctrine  in  question."  —  Rev. 
John  W.  Haley,  M.  A.,  author  of 
"Alleged  Discrepancies  of  the  Bible  " 
and  other  works. 

"  A  most  crushing  refutation  of 
their  sophistries." —  The  Christian 
Pioneer,  Australia. 

"  A  complete  antidote  to  the  falla- 
cies of  our  Seventh-Day  friends." — 
Christian  Colonist,  Australia. 

President's  Office,  Little  Rock 
University,  Ark. :  "  '  Adventism  Re- 
nounced '  is  a  most  timely  work, 
eminently  fitted  to  combat  the  falla- 
cies at  which  it  aims." — Prof.  W.  F. 
Shedd. 

"  *  Adventism  Renounced  '  is  like 
Webster's  Dictionary  or  the  sunshine, 
it  needs  no  praise.  No  candid  :nan 
can  read  the  book  and  be  an  Ad- 
ventist.  Every  preacher  should  have 
a  copy." — J.  V.  Coombs,  President 
of  Indiana  College,  Covington,  Ind. 

"  The  book  certainly  surpasses  in 
clearness,  strength  and  adaptability 
to  do  the  best  work  of  any  book 
which  has  ever  appeared  from  the 
press  on  the  Sabbath  question  and 
against  Seventh-Day  Adventists." — 
Texas  Baptist  and  Herald. 

"  It  is  certainly  an  excellent  book, 
pronounced  very  unanimously  as  the 
ablest  treatise  on  the  subject,  and 
would  do  good  service  in  the  hands 
of  pastors." — Pacific  Baptist ^  Port- 
land, Ore. 

«*  It  is  the  standard  on  Seventh* 


TESTIMONIALS. 


Day  Adventism  and  no  one  who 
sends  for  it  will  be  disappointed. 
We  recommend  it  as  simply  and  un- 
deniably the  best  work  on  the  ques- 
tion, as  it  deals  with  its  errors  from 
the  experimental  standpoint." — The 
Standard,  Cincinnati,  O. 

"  For  an  exhaustive  discussion  of 
the  questions  relating  to  the  Seventh- 
Day  and  the  first  day,  see  *  Seventh- 
Day  Adventism  Renounced,'  by  Rev. 
D.  M.  Canright."— David  C.  Cook 
Pub.  Co.,  Chicago,  in  the  New 
Adult  Bible  Class,  April,  191 2. 

"  What  books  would  you  recom- 
mend to  meet  the  advocates  of  S.  D. 
Adventism  ?  "  Ans.  "  We  would 
recommend  you  to  read  '  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  Renounced,'  by  Eld. 
Canright." — The  Christian  Workers' 
Magazine,  Oct.,  191 2,  published  by 
the  Moody  Bible  Institute,  Chicago. 
No  better  recommend  could  be  given. 

I  close  with  three  testimonies  of 
men  who  were,  like  myself,  long 
years  in  Adventism,  but  are  now 
free  in  Christ : 

"  Your  grand  book  is  received.  I 
do  not  think  I  ever  appreciated  a 
book  any  more  than  I  do  this  one, 
it  is  so  complete  and  unanswerable." 
— Prof.  C.  C.  Ramsey,  nine  years 
Professor  in  their  colleges,  and  now 
in  Harvard  University. 

••  I  heartily  commend  Elder  Can- 
right's  book  as  a  faithful  statement  of 
the  belief  and  practice  of  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists,  and  the  spirit  and 
tendency  of  the  system.  Adventists 
''an  never  meet  these  argument!. " — 
Rev.  D.  B.  Oviatt,  seven  years  Presi- 
dent of  the  Pennsylvania  Conf.  of  S. 
D.  Adventists. 

••We  were  Seventh-Day  Advent- 
ists for  more  than  twenty  years,  be- 
lieving the  doctrine  firmly.  Were 
familiarly    acquainted    with    Elder 


White  and  wife  and  the  inside  his- 
tory of  that  people.  We  found  it  a 
yoke  of  bondage  and  obtained  free- 
dom and  the  blessing  of  God  in  re- 
nouncing it  and  uniting  with  the 
Methodists.  We  heartily  endorse 
Elder  Canright's  book  as  correctly 
representing  that  people  and  their 
faith.  It  is  an  unanswerable  refuta- 
tion of  that  system." — Mr.  and  Mrs. 
C  A.  Russell,  Otsego,  Mich. 

I  have  selected  only  a  few  quota- 
tions from  scores  more  like  these, 
and  have  given  only  a  few  words 
from  each  of  these,  showing  how 
this  book  is  valued  by  good  judges. 


Books  and  Tracts 

The    above    named    bock,    cloth 

binding,  416  pages, 
"Adventism  Refuted."    Ten  Tracts, 

all  in  one  package  the  chief  points 

of  the  work    condensed  as  follows  : 
Sold  only  in  a 

full  package. 

No.   I.    Origin  and  History  of  Ad- 
ventism. 

No.  2.    The    Advent   Message    Ex 
amined. 

No.  3.    25  Objections  to  Adventism. 

No.  4.  Mrs.  White  and  Her  Visions. 

No.   5.   The    Jewish   Sabbath    Abol- 
ished. 

No.   6.  Why  We  Keep  Sunday. 

No.   7.  The    Seventh   Day    Sabbath 
Test  a  Failure. 

No.  8.   Is  Sunday  the  Mark  of  the 
Beast  ? 

No.  9.  Not  Under  the  Law. 

No.  10.  The  Commandments  in  the 
New  Testament. 
Fleming  H.  RevellCo.,  Publishers. 

Order  through  any  bookseller. 


Seventh«Day  Adventism 
Renounced 

AFTER    AN    EXPERIENCE    OF    TWENTY-EIGHT 

YEARS  BY  A  PROMINENT  MINISTER  AND 

WRITER  OF  THAT  FAITH. 


REV.  D.  M.  CANRIGHT, 


INTRODUCTION   BY 

REV.  THEO.  NELSON,  LL.D., 

Late  President  of  Kalamazoo  College. 


"  Ye  know  not  when  tlie  time  is,"    Jesus,  Mark  13;  33. 
"  Beware  of  false  prophets."    Jesus,  Matt.  7: 15. 
"  Keep  my  commandments."    Jesus,  John  14: 15. 


New  York  Chicago  Toronto 

Fleming     H.     Revell     Company 

London       a.nd       Edinburgh 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  In  the  year  1889,  by 

D.  M.  CANRIGHT, 
In  the  Oflace  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington 


Preface  to  Fourteenth  Edition. 

"To  criticise,  expose  and  condemn  others  is  not  a  pleasant 
task ;  but  when  religious  teachers  enthrone  error,  and  mis- 
lead honest  people,  silence  would  b^  unkind  and  censur- 
able." 

Being  profoundly  convinced  that  Seventh-Day  Advent- 
ism  is  a  system  of  error,  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  publish  what 
I  know  of  it.  I  do  it  in  the  fear  of  God.  Knowing  the 
sorrow  it  has  brought  to  my  heart  and  to  thousands,  I 
must  warn  others  against  it.  I  do  not  question  the  honesty 
of  the  Adventists,  but  their  sincerity  does  not  sanctify 
their  errors.  I  have  had  to  speak  plainly,  but,  I  trust, 
kindly.  I  have  had  to  treat  each  subject  briefly,  and  leave 
many  untouched,  but  I  have  taken  up  the  main  pillars  of 
that  faith ;  if  these  fall,  the  whole  must  go  down. 

It  is  now  nearly  twenty-five  years  since  this  book  was 
first  published.  This  is  the  fourteenth  edition.  It  has  been 
translated  into  several  languages,  sold  by  numerous  pub- 
lishing houses,  gone  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  wherever 
Adventism  has  gone,  and  has  been  the  greatest  obstacle 
that  work  has  ever  had  to  meet.  Yet  Adventists  have 
ventured  no  answer  to  it.  Say  what  they  may,  it  is 
evident  that  they  would  gladly  answer  it  if  they  could  do 
so  safely. 

"  Keplies  to  Eld.  Canright,"  quoted  in  this  work,  is  not 
an  answer  to  this  book,  but  to  a  few  articles  I  wrote  for  a 
paper  long  before  the  book  was  published.  The  pamphlet 
itself  proves  this.  The  title  page  is  dated  "  1888,"  while 
my  book  was  not  published  till  one  year  later,  1889.    See 

(5) 


6  PEEFACE  TO  FOURTEENTH   EDITION. 

my  title  page.  Then  on  page  eighty  of  their  pamphlet  1 
read  this :  "  He  promises  a  forthcoming  book,  by  which 
we  presume  he  designs  to  sweep  away  clean  everything 
which  his  articles  have  left.  It  will  receive  due  attention, 
if  thought  worthy  of  it,  when  it  appears."  This  shows 
that  this  "  Keply  "  was  no  answer  to  my  book.  One  was 
promised  but  never  appeared.  The  book  discusses  many 
topics  not  even  mentioned  in  the  articles,  and,  of  course^ 
is  much  more  complete  every  way.  Considering  that 
Adventists  are  always  so  ready  for  debate,  discussion  and 
replies,  how  is  it  that  this  book,  that  has  bothered  them 
more  than  all  others  which  have  appeared  against  them, 
is  so  carefully  let  alone  by  them  ?  The  reason  is  manifest 
to  all  candid  people. 

And  here  is  what  my  Advent  brethren  thought  of  me 
before  I  left  them  :  *' Battle  Creek,  Mich.,  July  13,  1881. 
Brother  Canright  ^  *  *  *  j  fQQ[  ^lore  interest  in  you 
than  in  any  other  man,  because  I  know  your  worth  when 
the  Lord  is  with  you,  as  a  laborer.     James  White." 

"  Battle  Creek,  Mich.,  May  22,  1881.  *  *  *  It  is 
time  there  was  a  change  of  the  officers  of  the  General 
Conference.  I  trust  that  if  we  are  true  and  faithful  the 
Lord  will  be  pleased  that  we  should  constitute  two  of  that 
Board.     James  White." 

"Battle  Creek,  Mich.,  Aug.  6,  1884.  *  *  *  You 
have  long  been  with  us,  and  we  all  love  you.  G.  I. 
Butler." 

"  Martinsburg,  Neb.,  July  14,  1884.  *  *  *  You 
were  a  power  in  the  world,  and  did  a  vast  amount  of 
good.  *  *  *  ^e  need  your  help  in  the  work  greatly. 
Your  precious  talent,  if  humbly  and  fully  consecrated  to 
God,  would  be  so  useful.  There  are  so  many  places  where 
it  would  be  a  great  help.     G.  I.  Butler." 


PREFACE  TO  FOURTEENTH  EDITION.  7 

Advent  Review^  March,  1887:  "We  have  felt  exceed- 
ingly sad  to  part  in  our  religious  connection  with  one 
whom  we  have  long  esteemed  as  a  dear  brother." 

Advent  Review^  March  22,  1887 :  "  In  leaving  us,  he 
has  taken  a  much  more  manly  and  commendable  course 
than  most  of  those  who  have  w^ithdrawn  from  us,  coming 
voluntarily  to  our  leading  brethren,  and  frankly  stating 
the  condition  of  mind  he  was  in.  He  did  this  before  his 
own  church,  in  our  presence,  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  has 
taken  no  unfaii^,  underhanded  means  to  injure  us  in  any 
way.  He  goes  from  our  midst  with  no  immoral  stain 
upon  his  character,  chooses  associations  more  pleasant  to 
himself.  This  is  every  man's  personal  privilege  if  he 
chooses  to  take  it." 

The  quotations  in  my  book  are  from  the  Adventist 
books  published  up  to  the  date  when  I  wrote  my  book, 
1889.  Since  then  most  of  their  books  have  been  reprinted 
and  paged  differently.  To  conform  to  these  books  as  now 
paged,  I  would  need  to  change  many  of  my  references. 
To  do  this  I  would  have  to  reprint  my  whole  book,  as  it 
is  in  electrotype  plates.  A  change  of  a  few  plates  would 
necessitate  a  change  of  all.  So  it  leaves  them  as  they 
were.  The  quotations  are  all  there,  only  some  are  on  a 
different  page  in  their  present  editions.  I  took  great 
care  to  have  every  quotation  exactly  correct.  They  are 
reliable. 

I  design  to  be  perfectly  fair  towards  my  Advent 
brethren.  I  was  with  them  twenty-eight  years,  from  the 
age  of  nineteen  to  forty-seven,  the  most  active  years  of  my 
life.  I  was  dearly  loved  by  them  and  I  loved  them.  I 
love  them  now.  I  have  thousands  of  dear  friends  among 
them  still.  It  was  a  terrible  trial  to  break  away  from  all 
these  tender  ties.     Even  now  the  tears  fall  fast  as  I  write 


8  PREFACE  TO  FOURTEENTH  EDITION. 

these  lines.    But  truth  and  duty  were  dearer  to  me  than 
social  ties. 

Again  I  bear  them  record  that  they  are  a  sincere, 
devoted,  self-sacrificing  people,  thoroughly  believing  what 
they  profess.  They  have  many  excellent  qualities,  and 
many  lovely  Christian  people  among  them.  Like  all 
churches,  they  have  their  full  share  of  undesirable  mem- 
bers, not  from  any  immoral  teachings,  but  from  human 
frailty,  common  in  all  churches.  Daily  I  pray  for  them 
that  the  Lord  may  bless  all  that  is  good  in  them  and  for- 
give, and,  in  some  way,  overrule  for  good  when  they  are 
in  error.    This  is  all  I  dare  ask  for  myself. 

D.  M.  Canright. 
1914. 


My  Present  Standing. 

"Whex  a  prominent  man  leaves  one  church  or  party  and 
joins  an  opposing  one  and  gives  his  reasons  for  it  he  may 
expect  that  his  old  associates  will  reply  to  him.  I  expected 
no  exception  in  my  case  when  I  renounced  Adventism,  so 
have  not  been  disappointed.  The  great  majority  of  my 
former  brethren  have  been  very  friendly  to  me  and  treated 
me  kindly.  A  few,  a  very  few,  have  done  otherwise. 
Their  object  has  been  to  counteract  my  influence  against 
what  they  regard  as  God's  work.  These  few  have  started 
the  report  that  I  have  been  sorry  I  left  Adventism,  that  I 
have  said  so,  have  tried  to  return  to  them,  have  confessed 
that  my  book  was  false,  and  some  have  said  that  I  was 
very  poor,  a  physical  and  mental  wreck,  with  no  hope  of 
salvation,  etc.  These  reports  are  accepted  as  facts  by 
honest  brethren  and  repeated  till  they  are  believed  by 
many  Adventists  the  world  over.  I  have  denied  them  in 
every  possible  way,  but  they  are  still  believed  and  re- 
peated, and  doubtless  always  will  be.  I  leave  God  to 
judge  between  us. 

I  now  and  here  for  the  hundredth  time  solemnly  affirm 
before  God  that  I  renounced  Adventism  because  I  believed 
it  to  be  an  error.  I  have  never  once  regretted  that  I  did 
so,  have  never  intimated  to  any  one  that  I  have  had  the 
least  desire  to  go  back  to  that  people.  It  would  be  im- 
possible for  me  to  do  such  a  thing  and  be  an  honest  man. 
I  am  now  (1915)  well  in  body  and  mind,  have  a  good 
home  worth  $10,000  or  $12,000,  and  have  four  grown 
children,  of  whom  any  man  would  be  proud.     On  leaving 

(9) 


10  MY  PRESENT  STANDING. 

the  Adventists  I  joined  the  Baptist  church  at  Otsego, 
Mich.,  and  became  its  pastor  till  it  was  built  up  into  a 
prosperous  church.  They  have  been  my  ardent  friends  to 
this  day.  Twenty  years  ago  I  moved  to  Grand  Eapids, 
Mich.,  took  a  new  mission  and  built  this  up,  organized  it 
into  a  church  which  has  become  one  of  the  strong  churches 
of  the  city,  having  several  hundred  members  with  a  fine 
edifice.  Have  twice  been  its  pastor,  always  an  active 
member.  At  present  I  teach  a  large  adult  Bible  class 
every  Lord's  day  and  often  preach  for  them.  Have 
always  been  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  church.  They 
honor  me  as  their  father,  consult  me  on  all  important 
matters,  and  hotly  resent  the  foolish  reports  which  some 
circulate  concerning  me. 

Out  of  scores  of  printed  testimonies  before  me  I  select 
only  a  few  which  speak  for  themselves : 

"  Grand  Eajpids^  Mich.^  l^ov.  1,  1907, 
"  To  whom  it  may  concern : 

"  Having  received  many  letters  from  all  parts  of 
the  United  States  from  those  that  have  been  informed  by 
Adventists  that  Eev.  D.  M.  Canright  was  not  a  member 
of  a  Baptist  church  and  many  other  things  pertaining  to 
his  character,  we  very  emphatically  denounce  any  such 
statements  and  will  say  that  he  is  now  and  has  been  for 
many  years  an  active  member  of  the  Berean  Baptist 
church  of  this  city  and  twice  its  pastor,  a  man  above  re- 
proach and  above  all  a  noble  Christian. 

"  Kespectfully,  W.  H.  Adrews,  former  clerk  and  charter 
member  of  the  above  named  church.  I  hereby  certify  to 
the  above. 

"  Rev.  Eobekt  Geay, 
"  Pastor  of  the  Berean  Church." 


MY  PKESENT  STANDING.  11 

"  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  Ap7'il  9,  1910, 
"  To  wJioin  it  may  concern,  world  wide, 
"  Deae  Beethren  ; 

"  This  letter  is  to  say  that  Kev.  D.  M.  Canright 
has  been  known  to  the  undersigned  for  many  years  as  an 
earnest,  consecrated  Christian  man,  and  a  true  minister  of 
Jesus  Christ.  He  has  been  '  a  faithful  and  true  witness ' 
against  the  errors  of  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists  in  his 
books  and  tracts  for  many  years. 

"  Olivee  W.  Van  Osbel, 
"  Moderator  Grand  Kiver  Yalley  Association. 

"  Alexandee  Dodds, 
"  President  City  Baptist  Mission  Society. 

"  W.  I.  COBUEN, 

"  President  Baptist  Ministers'  Conference." 

The  Baptists  are  not  the  only  people  who  think  w^ell 
of  the  Eev.  Mr.  Canright.  A  Congregational  minister 
adds  his  word  : 

"  This  certifies  that  I  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
Rev.  D.  M.  Canright  of  this  city  for  more  than  forty-five 
years.  At  least  twenty  years  of  that  time  he  was  an  Ad- 
ventist  preacher,  and  during  those  years  his  reputation  as 
a  Christian  man  and  as  a  preacher  of  rare  ability  was  of 
the  highest  order.  His  name  among  the  Adventist  people 
of  this  state  was  of  the  highest  order.  His  name  among 
the  Adventist  people  of  this  state  was  a  household  word 
for  righteousness  of  character,  and  an  able  defender  of 
their  faith.  And  when  he  left  the  Adventist  denomina- 
tion, all  who  knew  the  man,  if  they  were  at  all  imbued 
with  the  Christian  spirit,  must  admit  that  the  change 
made  by  him  was  due  to  a  candid,  conscientious  con- 
viction  of  what  he  believed  to  be  right.    There  could  bo 


12  MY  PRESENT  STANDING. 

no  other  motive  in  his  case,  for  he  was  successful  beyond 
many  of  his  bretliren,  and  honored  by  them  in  the  highest 
degree.  For  at  least  twenty  years  he  and  his  beloved 
family  have  lived  in  this  city  and  he  has  maintained  the 
same  reputation  that  he  had,  as  a  Christian  gentleman  and 
respected  citizen.  "What  I  have  written  is  from  personal 
knowledge  of  Kev.  D.  M.  Canright  and  of  the  Adventist 
denomination  in  this  state. 

"J.  T.  HUSTED, 

"  Pastor  of  the  Wallin  Congregational  Church. 
"  Grand  Rwpids^  Mich., 

April  m,  i9ioy 
The  Methodist  pastors  add  their  tribute  as  follows  : 

''  Various  inquiries  having  come  to  the  different  mem- 
bers of  the  Association  concerning  the  character  and 
standing  of  Rev.  D.  M.  Canright,  the  regular  monthly 
meeting  of  the  Methodist  Ministers'  Association  of  Grand 
Rapids,  Mich.,  did,  by  an  unanimous  vote,  adopt  the  follow- 
ing expression  of  its  confidence  in  and  regard  for  the  per- 
sonal worth  and  ministerial  usefulness  of  Brother  Canright. 

"  Rev.  D.  M.  Canright,  formerly  a  minister  in  the 
Seventh-Day  Adventist  Association,  more  recently  a 
minister  in  the  Baptist  Association  of  this  city,  has  been 
known  by  some  of  our  number  in  person  for  several  years 
and  by  reputation  by  the  rest,  and  all  our  knowledge  and 
information  concerning  him  are  of  the  most  favorable  kind. 

"  Any  reflections  on  his  personal  character  as  a  man,  a 
husband,  a  citizen,  a  son  or  a  Christian  are  without  foun- 
dation, in  fact,  are  unwarranted  by  any  facts  known  to 
his  intimate  acquaintances.  He  is  honored  among  his 
brethren,  respected  in  his  own  community,  and  is  com- 
mended by  us  as  being  worthy  of  confidence  and  trust 


MY  PRESENT  STANDING.  13 

He  has  had  an  honored  and  useful  ministry,  and  in  no 
sense  is  deserving  of  the  attacks  made  on  him. 

"  Done  at  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  this  11th  day  of  April, 
1910,  by  the  authority  of  the  Grand  Eapids  Methodist 
Ministers'  Association,  by 

"  John  R.  T.  Lathrop,  District  Supt. 

"  Charles  JSTease,  President. 

"  J.  R.  WooTEN,  Secretary." 

"  Grand  Rajpids^  Mich.,  April  11,  1910. 

"  It  is  with  sincere  pleasure  that  I  write  concerning  the 
character  and  integrity  of  the  Rev.  D.  M.  Canright.  I 
have  known  him  and  his  family  a  good  many  years,  and 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  they  are  very  estimable  people, 
and  have  the  confidence  of  their  neighbors  and  friends  in 
the  community. 

"I  consider  Mr.  Canright  a  Christian  gentleman  in 
every  sense  of  the  word ;  a  man  of  the  highest  integrity 
and  one  who  desires,  in  every  project  with  which  he  is 
connected,  to  make  righteousness  his  guide  to  action. 

"  He  has  done  business  with  our  bank  for  a  good  many 
years  and  I  have  personally  had  reason  to  test  his  integrity 
and  am  unequivocal  in  my  expression  of  confidence  in  him. 
"  Yery  truly  yours, 

"  Charles  W.  Garfielo." 

(Mr.  Garfield  is  president  of  a  bank  with  $2,000,000.) 

Adventists  sometimes  say  I  left  them  four  or  five  times. 
I  withdrew  from  that  church  just  once,  no  more,  that  was 
final.  Their  church  records  at  Battle  Creek  and  Otsego 
will  show  that.  For  years  I  was  troubled  with  doubts 
about  some  of  their  doctrines  and  three  times  stopped 
preaching  for  a  short  period,  but  remained  a  member  in 
good  standing,    At  a  large  camp-meeting  I  was  persuaded 


14  MY  PEESENT  STANDING. 

to  swallow  my  doubts,  take  up  the  work  again,  confess 
that  I  had  been  in  the  dark,  and  go  on  again.  I  yielded 
my  judgment  to  the  entreaties  of  my  brethren  and  the 
love  I  had  for  old  associates  and  said  what  I  soon  re- 
gretted. I  found  it  a  terrible  struggle  to  break  away 
from  what  had  held  me  so  long. 

Since  I  left  them  they  try  to  make  it  appear  that  I  did 
not  amount  to  much  anyway.  "  Sour  grapes,"  said  the 
fox  to  the  delicious  fruit  which  he  could  not  reach  !  As  a 
refutation  of  their  detractions,  see  Chapter  II  of  m}^  book. 
I  will  here  state  only  a  few  facts  briefly : 

During  two  years,  18T6,  1877,  I  was  one  of  the  general 
conference  committee  of  three  which  had  control  of  all 
their  work  in  the  world.  There  is  no  higher  authority  in 
the  denomination.  How  did  it  happen  that  I  was  placed 
in  that  office  if  I  was  not  one  of  their  best  men  ?  Year 
after  year  I  was  elected  on  the  boards  having  charge  of 
their  most  important  institutions,  such  as  their  Publishing 
House,  College,  Sanitarium,  Sabbath  School  Association, 
etc.,  etc.  For  proof  of  this  see  their  printed  year  books 
where  my  name  appear  constantly.  I  w^as  made  theo- 
logical teacher  in  their  college,  president  of  a  state  con- 
ference, associate  editor  of  a  paper,  etc.  I  selected  and 
arranged  the  course  of  reading  which  all  their  ministers 
had  to  follow,  and  I  was  sent  to  their  annual  state  con- 
ferences to  examine  these  preachers  in  those  studies,  in 
their  theology,  and  in  their  fitness  for  the  ministry.  la 
such  work  usually  committed  to  an  inferior  man  ? 

But  it  was  as  a  writer  in  their  papers,  as  the  author  of 
numerous  tracts,  pamphlets  and  books  covering  nearly 
every  controverted  point  of  their  faith,  as  a  lecturer  and 
debater  in  defense  of  their  doctrines,  that  I  was  the  best 
known  during  the  last  fifteen  years  I  was  with  them.     In 


MY  PRESENT  STANDING.  15 

these  lines,  not  a  man  among  them  stood  as  prominent  as 
I  did.  Every  one  at  all  familiar  with  their  work  during 
that  period  knows  that  I  tell  only  the  simple  truth  in  the 
case.  They  know  it,  too.  For  my  writings  the  office 
once  paid  me  $500  in  one  check  and  many  other  times 
different  sums.  After  twenty-seven  years  they  still  pub- 
lish and  use  several  of  my  tracts  as  being  better  than  any- 
thing they  have  been  able  to  produce  since. 

My  long  and  thorough  acquaintance  with  Adventism 
and  all  their  arguments  prepared  me  to  answer  them  as 
no  other  could.  Hundreds  of  ministers  from  all  parts 
have  written  me  their  thanks  for  the  aid  my  book  has 
been  to  them  in  meeting  Adventism.  Did  not  God  in  his 
providence  prepare  me  for  this  work  ?  I  humbly  believe 
he  did,  and  this  reconciles  me  to  the  long  and  bitter  ex- 
periences I  had  in  that  bondage.  But  if  God  and  the 
truth  is  honored,  I  am  content. 

The  only  question  is,  do  I  know  their  doctrines  well 
enough  to  state  them  clearly,  and  have  I  the  ability  to 
answer  them  plainly  ?    Let  my  work  be  the  answer. 

Since  I  withdrew  Adventists  have  published  five  or  six 
different  tracts  to  head  off  my  influence.  If  I  amount  to 
so  little,  why  all  this  effort  ?  What  they  do  refutes  what 
they  say.  God  has  preserved  me  to  outlive  nearly  all  the 
Adventist  ministers  with  whom  I  began  laboring.  At 
seventy-five  am  full  of  faith  in  God  and  the  hope  of 
eternal  life  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

I  love  those  brethren  still  and  know  that  most  of  them 
are  honest  Christian  people,  but  in  error  on  many  of  their 
riews.     I  would  be  glad  to  help  them  if  I  could. 

D.  M.  Canright, 
Pastor  Emeritus  of  the  Berean  Baptist  Church. 

Grand  JRapids^  Michigan, 


Table  of  Contents. 


Page. 

Preface  to  Fourteenth  Edition, 5 

My  Present  Standing, 9 

Introduction, 21 

By  Rev.  Dr.  Nelson.  ,  ^^^^ 

CHAPTEE  I — Doctrines  and  Methods  of  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists, 2^ 

Their  Doctrines — Extent  of  Their  Work — Hostility  to 
Others — Methods  of  Work — How  to  Meet  It — Lack  of 
Education. 

CHAPTEK  II— An  Experience  of  Twenty-Eight 

Years  in  Adventism, 37 

Accepts  Adventism — Ordained — First  Doubts — Posi- 
tion of  Elder  White  and  Wife — Leading  Men  in  Doubt 
♦-Extensive  Labors — Elder  White's  Death — Doubts 
Increase — At  Work  Again — Renounces  the  Doctrin© 
— Why? — Positions  Held — False  Reports — Joins  the 
Baptists. 

CHAPTER  III— Adventism  a  Yoke  of  Bondage,    .      59 

Confessions  of  Ministers,  Etc. — Ministers  Who  Have 
Renounced  It-;r-College  Professors  —  Physicians — 
Leads  to  Infidelity — Church  Backslidden. 

CHAPTER  lY— Origin,  History  and  Failures  of 

Adventism, 67 

Time  Set  for  the  End  of  the  World  in  the  2d  Century, 
10th  Century,  17th  Century,  and  Often  Since — Sev- 
enth-Day Adventists'  Origin — Miller — Fruit  of  Miller- 
ism — Time  Setting — Miller's  Confession — No  Special 
Message — Eighteen  Mistakes.  / 

CHAPTER  Y — My  Objections  to  the  Seventh-Day  / 

Adventist  System, 81 

Twenty-Six  Objections — Their  Position  on  the  Proph- 
ecies— Ignorance  of  Many  of  Them. 

17 


18  TABLE    OF   CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  YI— The  Two-Horned  Beast  and 

THE  Messages, 89 

The  Advent  Theory — It  is  the  Papacy— Arguments  An- 
swered—Image of  the  Beast — Deadly  Wound — Mark  of 
the  Beast  —  Absurdities  —  Who  Has  the  Mark  of  the 
Beast? — The  Three  Messages— God's  Seal. 

CHAPTER  y II— The  Sanctuary, 117 

Their  Theory— The  Shut  Door — New  Theories— Within 
the  Yail-The  Temple— Why  They  are  Wrong— The 
Gospel  Temple. 

CHAPTER  YIII— Mrs.  White  and  Her  Reve- 
lations,       129 

Warned  Against  False  Prophets  —  Swedenborg — Ann 
Lee — Joanna  Southcott — Joseph  Smith — Mrs.  White's 
Claims  to  Inspiration— Writes  a  New  Bible — It  is  Their 
Guide— Not  Inspired — Plagiarisms — Visions  Suppressed 
— Her  Mistakes— The  Shut  Door — False  Predictions — 
Reform  Dress — Philosophy  of  Her  Trances — Harm  She 
Does— Becomes  Rich — The  Result. 

CHAPTER  IX— The  Nature  of  the  Sabbath 

Commandment, 166 

Both  Moral  and  Ceremonial — Benefit  of — Days  Do  Not 
Differ  Naturally — Must  Be  Made  Holy — Ceremony  De- 
fined—Sabbath Chiefly  Ceremonial— Temporal — On  the 
Round  Earth — Day  Line — At  the  Poles — Lost  Time. 

CHAPTER  X— Why  Christians  Keep  Sunday,    185 

Lord's  Day  Traced  Back  to  the  Apostles — Rev.  1:10 — 
Testimony  of  Lexicons  and  Commentators — Jesus  is 
Lord — A  Fitting  Day — Importance  of  the  Resurrection 
Day— John  20:26— Pentecost— Acts  20:7—1  Cor.  16: 
1,2. 

CHAPTER    XI-— Did  the    Pope    Change  the 

Sabbath? 210 

Advent  Saying-s  —  Catechisms  —  Catholic  Testimony-  - 
Pliny — Barnabas — "Teaching  of  the  Apostles" — Justin 
Martyr  —  Dionysius  —  Bardesanes — Clement. — Tertullian 
— Origen  —  Apostolical  Constitutions — Anatolius-  -Vic- 
torinus— Peter — Eusebius— Cyclopedias. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.  19 

Paga 
CHAPTEK   XII — Sabbatarian   Positions   on    the 

History  of   Sunday  Refuted, 234 

"Bible  Only"— "Fathers  Unreliable"— Sunday  Not  the 
Sabbath — Their  Authors  Examined — Pagans  and  Sun- 
day— Constantine  and  Sunday — Exact  Date  When  the 
Sabbath  Was  Changed — Arguments  Refuted. 

CHAPTER  XIII— The  Sabbath  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,       249 

In  Genesis— Ex.  16— "Jewish  Sabbath"— Ex.  31:16,  17 
— In  the  Decalogue — Isa.  56,  58  and  66 — Eze.  22. 

CHAPTER  XIA^— The  Sabbath  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,       264 

A  Radical  Change — New  Testament  Decalogue — 
Christ's  Example— Mark  2:27,  28;  Matt.  24:20;  28:1; 
Luke  23:56— The  Time  Table— In  Acts— Paul's  Ex- 
ample. 

CHAPTER  XY— The  Jewish  Sabbath  Abolished,  282 
Col.  2:14-17— Sabbath  Days,  the  Seventh  Day— The 
Greek  Word  for  Sabbath — The  Seventh  Day  Associ- 
ated with  Meats,  Drinks,  Feast  Days,  Etc. — Comments 
by  Others — No  Annual  Sabbaths — A  Shadow — Types 
in  Eden— Gal.  4:10;  Rom.  14:5. 

CHAPTER  XVI — A  History  of  Numerous  Efforts 

TO  Revive  the  Jewish  Sabbath.     All  Fail,    .     298 

Why  Not  Found  Out  Before?— Efforts  to  Revive  the 
Sabbath  Fail — At  the  Reformation — In  England — Sev- 
enth-Day Baptists — Adventist  Effort — As  a  Test  It 
Fails — Their  "New  Light" — Opposed  by  Luther,  Bax- 
ter, Bunyan,  Roger  Williams,  Etc. 

CHAPTER  XAai— The  Law, 305 

Antinomianism — "The  Law"  Defined — The  Two  Laws 
— The  Decalogue  Alone  Not  the  Law  of  God — The 
Law  Was  Given  by  Moses — Did  Not  Exist  Until  Moses 
— Was  Given  Only  to  Jews — Not  for  Gentiles,  and 
Was  Only  Temporal — God's  Higher  Law  Is  Eternal — 
Object  of  the  Law — Letter  of  the  Law  Abolished  and 
the  Law  Changed — Law  of  Liberty. 

CHAPTER  XVIII— The  Decalogue  Examined,  .    .     338 
Shown  to  Apply  Only  to  Israel— Catholic  Division  oi' 
— Eminent  Authors  on  Its  Abolition. 


20  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XIX— The  Two  Covenants,     ....    350 
The    Covenant    Defined.     It     is     the    Decalogue — 13 
Found   in  Ex.   19  to   24 — Extent  of — Abolished — How 
the  New  Differs  from  the  Old — Comments. 

CHAPTER  XX— What  Law  are  Christians  Under?    360 
The  Authority  of  Christ — He  Gave  Commandments — 
Apostles  Gave  Commandments — These  are  the  Com- 
mandments of  God. 

CHAPTER  XXI— Forty-Seven  Prominent  Texts 

Used  by  Sabbatarians  Examined, 366 

This  Includes  in  Order  as  They  Come  Every  Impor- 
tant Text  on  the  Sabbath  or  the  Law  from  Gen.  2:1-3, 
to  Rev.  22:14. 

CHAPTER  XXII— The  Nature  of  Man,    ....    395 

The  Faith  of  All  People — In  the  Apocrypha — Josephua 
— Faith  of  the  Early  Church — Soul  Sleeping  a  Sickly 
Plant — Is  No  Cure  for  Infidelity — The  Rational  Argu- 
ment— Bible  Argument — Man's  Spirit  Is  Deathless — 
The  Body  Only  a  Tabernacle — Their  Texts  Answered 
— Endless  Punishment — Annihilation  Texts  Exam- 
ined. 

APPENDIXES 411 


Introduction. 

By  Rev.  Theo.  Nelson^  LL.  D.,  late  President  of 
Kalamazoo  College, 

I  MET  for  the  first  time  the  author  of  "  Adventism 
Eenounced "  in  the  autumn  of  1865.  He  was  then  a 
rising  young  minister  in  high  favor  with  his  people.  Then, 
as  now,  I  had  entire  confidence  in  his  sincerity.  Nor  do 
I  think  it  strange  that,  after  more  than  twenty  years  de- 
voted to  Seventh-Day  Adventist  propagandism,  he  should 
finally  renounce  their  doctrines,  and  return  to  the  orthodox 
faith.  It  is  not  necessary  to  impute  any  sinister  or  un- 
worthy motives.  Eather,  it  is  easy  enough  to  believe  that 
experience  and  study,  or  the  evolution  of  intelligence,  as 
well  as  the  irresistible  logic  of  events,  would  inevitably 
bring  to  pass  this  result.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  have 
always  made  a  great  deal  of  the  "  signs  of  the  times,"  of 
earthquakes  and  falling  stars,  of  "wars  and  rumors  of 
wars."  Arguments  which  might  profoundly  impress  the 
imagination  of  a  youth  during  the  troubled  period  of  our 
great  civil  war,  would  naturally  lose  their  hold  upon 
the  riper  judgment  of  a  man  in  these  "piping  tunes  of 
peace." 

Toward  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists  as  a  people  I 
cherish  none  but  feelings  of  kindness.  Generally,  their 
piety  is  undoubtedly  genuine,  though  misanthropic  and 
melancholy.  They  take  a  low  view  of  human  nature,  and 
practically  isolate  themselves  from  their  neighbors,  and 

(21) 


22  INTRODUCTION. 

from  those  affairs  which  concern  the  well-being  of  society 
as  a  whole.  They  stand  aloof  from  every  movement 
which  looks  to  human  progress,  because  they  believe  that 
human  progress  is  impossible,  and  that  mankind  are 
already  doomed  ;  that  destruction  is  impending,  "  even  at 
the  door."  In  fact,  their  religious  faith  restrains,  if  it 
does  not  destroy,  their  sentiment  of  patriotism,  and  causes 
them  to  regard  with  suspicion,  if  not  with  feelings  of  hos- 
tility, the  free  government  under  which  they  live.  Noth- 
ing can  be  more  absurd  than  their  interpretations  of  current 
events,  and,  especially,  their  belief  that  our  general  and 
state  governments  are  about  to  be  converted  into  engines 
of  religious  persecution  and  despotism.  It  cannot  be  other- 
wise than  that  many  sincere  Seventh-Day  Adventists,  who 
have  been  such  by  what  they  believed  the  imperative 
necessity  of  Scripture  teaching,  will  be  grateful  to  Mr. 
Canright  for  aiding  them  to  put  off  a  yoke  which  fetters 
their  usefulness  and  galls  their  minds. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  believe  and  teach  that  before 
the  second  coming  of  Christ  the  United  States  will  form 
a  union  of  church  and  state,  and,  like  France  and  Spain  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  will  become  a  persecuting  power. 
They  hold  that  the  prophetic  Scriptures  clearly  fore- 
tell this  extraordinary  change  in  the  form  and  spirit  of 
our  government.  Touching  the  correctness  of  the  in- 
terpretations of  Scripture  upon  which  their  expectations 
are  based,  they  admit  no  possibility  of  mistake.  They 
assume  to  know  that  they  have  the  right  key  to  prophecy 
— that  they  have  the  "  present  truth."  They  believe  and 
teach  that  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists  are  to  be  especially 
tried  in  this  ordeal  that  is  being  prepared  by  the  civil 
government ;  that  they  are  to  be  the  chief  victims  of  the 
fiery  persecutions  that  will  be  waged  against  the  "  Saintg 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

of  the  Most  High  " ;  that  they  are  to  suffer,  at  the  hands 
of  the  secular  power,  imprisonments,  tortures,  "  the  spoil- 
ing of  their  goods,"  and  perhaps  death  itself.  Indeed, 
they  stake  their  whole  system  of  doctrine  upon  this  mean- 
ing of  the  Word  of  God,  and  they  regard  these  momentous 
events,  which  they  claim  the  Bible  forecasts,  as  much  a 
reality  as  though  those  events  had  already  transpired. 
Those  events  are  a  reality  to  them  and  have  the  same 
value  in  argument,  and  the  same  authority  in  action,  as 
history  itself.  In  their  publications  and  sermons  they 
often  adopt  the  style  of  the  confessor  who  is  already 
brought  to  the  scaffold,  or  bound  to  the  stake ;  they  speak 
out  in  a  tone  of  defiant,  heroic  submission,  as  though  the 
fagots  were  being  kindled  and  the  crown  of  martyrdom 
were  in  full  view.  To  one  who  is  familiar  with  the  his- 
tory of  religious  persecutions,  and  has  studied  the  progress 
and  development  of  religious  freedom,  especially  in  Anglo- 
Saxon  nations ;  to  one  who  is  fairly  acquainted  with  the 
spirit  of  the  age  and  country  in  which  we  live,  this 
ostentatious  martyr-spirit  of  our  Adventist  friends  seems 
quite  absurd.  Were  it  not  for  their  well-known  upright- 
ness and  probity  of  character,  we  should  be  disposed  to 
challenge  their  belief,  such  is  their  eagerness  to  find  its 
proof  and  confirmation  in  events  which  have  no  such 
meaning.  Under  our  form  of  government  would  it  be 
possible  to  achieve  a  more  intimate  and  perfect  union  of 
"  church  and  state  "  than  is  embodied  in  the  government 
of  monarchical  English?  Such  a  change  would  be  a 
greater  miracle  than  for  God  to  grow  a  giant  oak  in  an 
instant.  The  trend  of  our  civilization,  the  most  powerful 
currents  of  public  opinion,  are  all  in  the  opposite  direction. 
Yet,  even  in  England,  Adventists  are  free  to  publish  their 
peculiar  doctrines,  to  establish  churches,  and  to  pursue 


24  INTRODUCTION. 

their  vocations  like  other  men.  Eeligious  freedom  is  the 
spirit  of  the  age,  and,  most  of  all,  the  spirit  of  the  age  in 
America.  Hence,  we  say,  there  need  be  no  fears  for  the 
grave  forebodings  of  our  Advent  friends. 

Theo.  JS'elson. 


CHAPTER  I. 

DOCTRINES   AND   METHODS   OF   SEVENTH-DAY 
ADVENTISTS. 

Seventh-Day  Adventism  originated  about  seventy-five 
years  ago  in  the  work  of  Mr.  Miller,  who  set  the  time  for 
the  end  of  the  world  in  1843-4.  Adding  some  doctrines 
to  the  original  faith,  Elder  James  White  and  wife  in  1846 
became  the  leaders  of  the  Seventh-Day  branch  of  Ad- 
ventism. Their  headquarters  were  at  different  times  at 
Paris,  Me.,  Saratoga,  Oswego,  and  Rochester,  N.  Y.  In 
1855  they  settled  permanently  at  Battle  Creek,  Mich., 
*vhich  remained  the  center  of  the  work  till  recently. 

THEIR  DOCTEINES. 

In  doctrine  they  differ  radically  from  evangelical 
churches.  The  main  points  are  these  as  taught  in  all 
their  books  :  They  hold  to  the  materiality  of  all  things ; 
believe  in  the  sonship  of  Christ ;  believe  that  they  only 
have  a  correct  understanding  of  the  prophecies  to  which 
they  give  most  of  their  attention ;  that  the  end  of  the 
world  is  to  occur  in  this  generation  ;  that  we  are  now  in 
the  Judgment  which  began  in  1844 ;  that  the  Seventh 
day,  Saturday,  must  be  kept ;  that  keeping  Sunday  is  the 
mark  of  the  beast ;  that  all  should  pay  tithes  ;  that  Mrs. 
White  is  inspired  as  were  the  writers  of  the  Bible ;  that 
the  Bible  must  be  interpreted  to  harmonize  with  her  writ- 
ings ;  that  they  are  called  of  God  to  give  the  last  warning 
to,^  the  world ;  that  the  dead  are  unconscious ;  that  the 
wicked  and  the  devil  will  be  annihilated  ;  that  all  churches 
but  their  own  are  Babylon  and  rejected  of  God  ;  that 
everybody  but  themselves  will  soon  become  spiritualists  ,• 

(25) 


26  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

that  when  Christ  comes  only  144,000  out  of  all  then  living 
on  the  earth  will  be  saved,  and  all  these  will  be  Seventh 
Day  Adventists.  Hence,  they  have  no  fellowship  with 
other  Christians ;  never  work  with  them  in  any  way,  but 
zealously  proselyte  from  all. 

They  believe  in  the  Bible,  in  conversion,  in  purity  of 
life,  in  rigid  temperance,  in  strict  morality,  and  in  other 
good  things  common  to  all  churches.  There  are  many 
excellent  persons  among  them.  In  character  they  are  not 
be  compared  with  the  spiritualists,  infidels,  etc.,  as  is  some- 
times unjustly  done. 

THE  EXTENT  OF  THEIR  "WORK. 

Their  Year  Book  for  1912  reports  the  following : 

Conferences,  129 ;  mission  fields,  87 ;  organized 
churches,  2,769  ;  membership,  90,808 ;  unorganized,  15,- 
758 ;  total,  104,528.  Ordained  ministers,  828  ;  licensed 
ministers,  458  ;  missionaries,  1,234  ;  book  canvassers,  1,697 ; 
total  laborers,  4,346 ;  Sabbath  Schools,  4,151 ;  member- 
ship, 101,161 ;  church  schools,  594 ;  students,  13,357 ; 
colleges  and  academies,  86  ;  students,  7,169  ;  publishing 
houses,  28  ;  employees,  610  ;  sanitariums,  74  ;  employees, 
1,989  ;  tithes,  $1,338,689.65  ;  average  per  member,  $12.81 ; 
contributions,  for  missions,  home  church  work,  tithes  and 
all  funds  by  the  denomination,  $2,223,767.52. 

They  publish  121  periodicals  in  twenty-eight  languages. 
Books  and  tracts  published  in  ninety-one  languages. 

The  above  will  give  a  fair  idea  of  the  strength  of  that 
church.  However,  their  main  efficiency  is  in  the  distri- 
bution of  their  literature.  Every  member,  old  and  young, 
down  to  little  children,  is  taught  and  urged  to  engage  in 
every  way  possible  in  distributing  these  tracts,  papers  and 
books  through  every  possible  channel.     Every  one  believes 


DOCTRINES  AND  METHODS  OF  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISTS.  27 

he  is  doing  God's  work  when  he  does  this.  Hence  every  \ 
member  is  a  missionary  in  some  way.  The  result  is  their  I 
literature  is  coming  to  be  widely  scattered  the  world  over.  ] 
Yet  the  results  of  all  this  tremendous  outlay  of  money  and 
work  are  very  meagre.  In  the  last  four  years  with  4,000 
laborers  in  the  field,  they  have  only  averaged  a  gain  of 
4,000  members  per  year,  or  one  for  every  worker.  They 
have  been  at  work  now  for  seventy-five  years  to  get  104,  ■ 
000  members.  The  Mormons,  starting  about  the  same 
date,  now  number  500,000,  nearly  five  times  as  many. 
The  Christian  Scientists,  only  about  half  as  old,  have  over 
a  million  members.  There  is  very  little  real  spiritual 
power  in  it.  The  work  is  done  mostly  by  hard  labor  and 
argument,  not  by  any  such  mighty  power  as  attended  the 
work  of  the  Apostles,  or  Luther,  or  Wesley,  or  Moody 
and  many  others.  Their  work  now  extends  to  all  parts 
of  the  civilized  world  and  into  many  heathen  lands. 

The  number  of  their  actual  converts  does  not  tell  the 
harm  they  do.  Where  they  convert  one  they  confuse  a 
score,  who  after  that  have  no  settled  faith  in  any  church, 
and  are  useless  for  any  Christian  work.  Other  conscien- 
tious persons  are  bothered  and  worried  over  it  for  years, 
not  knowing  what  to  do. 

THEIR  HOSTILITY  TO   ALL  OTHER  CHURCHES. 

One  of  the  highly  objectionable  features  of  that  system  is 
the  bitter  hostility  of  its  believers  towards  all  other  churches. 
Their  theory  is  tha;t  all  churches  but  their  own  were  utterly 
rejected  of  God  in  1844  for  not  embracing  Miller's  doctrine. 
Thus  Mrs.  White  says :  "  I  saw  the  state  of  the  different 
churches  since  the  second  angel  proclaimed  their  fall  [in 
1844].  They  have  been  growing  more  and  more  corrupt. 
*    *    *    Satan  has  taken  full  possession  of  the  churches  as 


28        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

a  body.  *  *  *  The  churches  were  left  as  were  the  Jews; 
and  they  have  been  filling  up  with  every  unclean  and  hate- 
ful bird.  I  saw  great  iniquity  and  vileness  in  the  churches; 
yet  they  profess  to  be  Christians.  Their  professions,  their 
prayers  and  their  exhortations  are  an  abomination  in  the 
sight  of  God.  Said  the  angel,  God  will  not  smell  in  their 
assemblies.  Selfishness,  fraud  and  deceit  are  practiced  by 
them  without  the  reprovings  of  conscience. "  Spiritual  Gifts, 
Vol.  I,  pages  189,  190.  She  says  it  is  the  devil  who  answers 
their  prayers.  Thus:  *'I  saw  them  look  up  to  the  throne 
and  pray,  Father  give  us  thy  spirit;  Satan  would  then 
breathe  upon  them  an  unholy  influence."  Early  Writings, 
page  47.  Again:  ''The  nominal  churches  are  filled  witi 
fornication  and  adultery,  crime  and  murder,  the  result  of 
base,  lustful  passion;  but  these  things  are  kept  covered." 
Testimonies,  Vol.  II,  page  449.  All  intelligent  people  know 
that  such  statements  are  a  misrepresentation  of  the  evan- 
gelical churches  of  to-day.  Elder  White  says  :  "  Baby- 
lon, the  nominal  church,  is  fallen ;  God's  people  have 
come  out  of  her.  She  is  now  the  synagogue  of  Satan." 
Present  Truth.  April,  1850. 

Hence  they  say  that  the  revivals  and  conversions  in  the 
churches  are  largely  a  deception,  the  work  of  the  devil,  not 
of  God.  Mrs.  White  says  of  them:  ''The  converts  are  not 
renewed  in  heart  or  changed  in  character."  "They  will 
exult  that  God  is  working  marvelously  for  them,  when  the 
work  is  that  of  another  spirit.  Under  a  religious  guise, 
Satan  will  spread  his  influence  over  the  land.  He  hopes  to 
deceive  many  hy  leading  them  to  think  that  God  is  still  with 
the  churches.''''  Great  Controversy,  pages  294,  296.  On  this 
the  Keview  and  Herald,  May  3,  1887,  says:  "We  are  aware 
that  to  assume  that  this  revival  work,  so  unquestionably  ac- 
cepted by  all  the  churches,  is  not  genuine,  will  cause  the 
hands  of  Christendom  to  be  raised  in  holy  horror.     *    *    * 


DOCTEINES  AND  METHODS  OF  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISTS.    2& 

If  He  [God]  is  with  us,  He  has  not  been  with  the  popular 
churches  in  any  marked  manner  since  they  rejected  the  Ad- 
vent message  of  184^-4:,  and  they  are  congratulating  them- 
selves over  delusive  appearances,  and  a  prosperity  which  has 
no  existence  in  fact.  The  hand  of  God  cannot  direct  two 
movements  so  antagonistic  in  nature. " 

Believing  this,  they  eagerly  watch  for  evidence  to  prove 
it  and  shut  their  eyes  to  any  facts  against  it.  So  they  rejoice 
at  any  unfavorable  thing  they  can  hear  against  ministers, 
churches,  or  members.  They  report  it,  repeat  it,  publish  it, 
mangnify  it,  and  live  on  it.  To  weaken,  divide,  or  break 
up  a  church,  is  their  delight.  They  heartily  join  with  world- 
lings, infidels  and  atheists  in  their  opposition  to  churches, 
and  thus  strengthen  their  unbelief  and  help  them  to  perdi- 
tion. They  have  gathered  up  all  the  most  unfavorable  things 
possible  to  find  against  the  churches  and  put  it  in  a  book 
occupying  thirty  pages,  and  this  they  hand  out  for  all  to 
read.  It  is  sad  to  see  honest  men  devoting  their  lives  to 
such  highly  censurable  work,  which  must  please  Satan  y/^ 

WHO  IS  DECEIVED? 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  dwell  much  on  how  easy  it  i&  to 
be  deceived,  to  be  led  by  Satan,  when  we  think  it  is  the 
Lord — to  believe  a  lie  for  the  truth.  It  is  amusing  to  see 
how  innocently  they  apply  all  this  to  others,  and  never 
dream  that  it  has  any  application  to  themselves!  What,  tkey 
deceived?  ^A^?/ misled?  Impossible!  They  know  they  lii-e 
right.  Exactly,  and  that  is  just  the  way  all  feel,  whether 
they  be  Mormons,  Shakers,  Catholics,  or  what  not.  The 
Adventists  themselves  are  an  illustration  of  the  ease  with 
which  people  are  misled. 

THEIR  METHODS  OF  WORK, 

Tent  Meetings.  Largely  they  use  tents  to  enter  new 
fields.     Being  a  novelty,  they  attract  attention.     At  first 


so  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

they  present  subjects  which  will  offend  no  one  till  they  gain 
the  confidence  of  the  people.  Gradually  they  introduce 
their  peculiar  dogmas,  then  come  ov^  more  boldly,  till  at 
length  they  denounce  all  other  churches  as  Babylon,  and 
their  pastors  as  hirelings  and  deceivers.  They  say  these 
pastors  cannot  defend  their  doctrines;  dare  not  try.  The}' 
offer  rewards  to  any  who  will  prove  so  and  so;  boast  how 
they  have  scared  this  one,  defeated  that  one,  and  silenced 
another.  If  in  sermons  the  least  reference  is  made  to  them, 
they  call  it  persecution,  give  out  a  review,  and  do  every- 
thing to  provoke  controversy.  When  the  resident  pastors 
are  compelled  to  defend  themselves,  the  Adventists  claim  to 
be  greatly  abused. 

If  a  doctor,  lawyer,  teacher,  or  business  man  should 
enter  a  town  and  denounce  all  others  of  his  profession  as 
quacks,  fools,  or  deceivers,  how  would  he  be  treated  ?  All 
would  combine  against  him  as  a  common  enemy. 

This  is  the  way  the  pastors  and  churches  meet  the  attacks 
of  the  Adventists,  because  compelled  to.  Like  Ishmael  of 
old,  the  hand  of  the  Adventist  is  against  every  man,  and 
hence  every  man's  hand  is  against  them.  Gen.  16:  12. 
It  is  useless  for  them  to  deny  this,  for  all  know  it  to  be  true. 
They  all  do  it.  I  was  taught  that  way  and  followed  it,  and 
taught  others  to  do  the  same. 

Camp^meetings.  Adventists  hold  many  camp-meet- 
ings yearly.  Here  their  ablest  speakers  preach  their  doc- 
trines to  thousands,  and  distribute  their  literature  widely. 
They  hire  the  papers  to  print  lengthy  flattering  reports  of 
Iheir  meetings,  which  they  write  themselves.  Their  reporters 
are  trained  for  this  special  work.  They  gain  wide  attention, 
and  impress  many  in  this  way. 

Bible  Readings,  Hundreds  of  their  men,  women,  and 
even  young  girls,  are  trained  with  printed  lessons  which  they 
learn  by  heart,  to  ^^o  from  house  to  house  and  give  Bible 


DOCTRINES  AND  METHODS  OF  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISTS.  31 

readings.     At  first  they  conceal  their  real   object  and 
name,  till  they  get  a  foothold.     Then  they  cantiousl}^  in- 
]^  ■  troduce  their  tenets,  work  against  pastors  and  churches, 
and  lead  away  many. 

I  Book-selling.  Hundreds  also  are  employed  to  canvass 
for  their  doctrinal  books.  The  real  nature  of  the  book  is 
studiously  concealed,  and  the  subscriber  is  deceived  into 
buying  a  radical  Advent  book. 

Distrihiition  of  Tracts.    In  every  possible  way,  publicly, 

privately,  from  tent  or  church,  by  book-agents,  colporteurs, 

V/1  Bible-readers,  or  private  individuals,  in  depots,  on  boats, 

in  stores,  or  families,  through  the  mails,  by  sale,  loan  or 

gift,  their  tracts  are  persistently  crowded  everywhere. 

Missions.  They  have  Missions  in  many  of  the  large 
cities  and  in  foreign  lands  ;  but  they  are  largely  proselyting 
agencies.  They  do  little  among  the  heathen,  or  for 
the  destitute  and  fallen,  but  go  into  the  best  families  to 
which  they  can  gain  access,  and  gather  the  converts  whom 
other  missionaries  have  made.  Thus  Mrs.  White  instructs 
them :  "  Mistakes  have  been  made  in  not  seeking  to  reach 
ministers  and  the  higher  classes  with  the  truth.  *  *  * 
Educate  men  and  women  to  labor  for  these  higher  classes 
both  here  and  in  other  countries."  Testimony  No.  33, 
pages  108,  109.  Jesus  sent  his  disciples  into  the  highways 
and  hedges  for  the  poor,  lame  and  blind,  for  publicans, 
harlots  and  sinners  ;  but  Mrs.  White  does  not  relish  that 
kind.  She  wants  them  from  "  the  ministers  and  higher 
classes,"  "  the  whole  who  need  no  physician,"  those  who 
can  bring  talent  and  money  into  the  cause. 

Where  They  Work.  Adventists  have  the  best  success 
in  new  fields,  where  they  are  least  known.  Hence  the 
w^estern  States  is  where  they  are  most  numerous.  In  New 
England,  where  they  started,  they  have  had  to  struggle 


32  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  EENOUNOED. 

hard  to  hold  their  own.     In  some  of  the  older  fields  they 
have  lost  in  numbers,  in  others  the  gain  is  very  small.     In 
hundreds  of  places  where  there  were  fair  sized,  active 
churches  in  the  past,  now  no  church  at  all,  or  a  straggling, 
j  discouraged  handful.     Battle  Creek  is  a  fair  illustration. 
I  This  was  their  headquarters  for  forty  years.     Once  there 
I  were  2,000  Sabbath  keepers  here,  all  united.    Now  there 
:  are  less  than  1,000,  divided  into  four  opposing  parties, 
their  influence  entirely  gone.    The  same  is  true  elsewhere. 
About  all  the  converts  they  make  are  at  the  outset.    After 
a  few  years'  acquaintance,  they  have  no  influence  and  few 
or  none  join  them.     Their  churches  grow  smaller,  gener- 
ally, till  they  are  unnoticed.     The  average  membership  of 
their  churches  is  29 — exceedingly  small ;  how  different 
from  the  evangelical  churches  !    The  longer  these  are  in 
a  town  the  stronger  tbey  grow,  and  the  more  influence 
they  have  generally.     Eat  Adventism  does  not  wear. 

HOW  TO  MEET  ADVENTISM. 

f  People  are  led  into  Adventism  from  lack  of  information. 
Hence,  when  Adventism  enters  a  town  the  people  should 
be  told  plainly  what  it  is,  what  its  effects  are,  and  wherein 
it  is  unscriptural.  Quite  generally  pastors  make  a  mistake 
in  letting  it  alone  for  weeks,  till  it  has  gained  a  foothold. 
I  always  noticed  that  where  the  pastors  united  and  worked 
against  us  on  the  start,  we  could  do  but  little.  So  I  would 
advise  churches  and  pastors  to  take  right  hold  of  the  mat- 
ter earnestly  as  soon  as  people  are  interested  in  it.  Preach 
on  it ;  visit  those  who  are  being  led  away ;  hold  Bible- 
readings  ;  furnish  them  with  proper  books  and  tracts.  Sit 
down  patiently  and  answer  arguments.  Yisit  them  again 
s  and  again.  Adventists  will  work  a  whole  year,  will  go  a 
I  hundred  times,  will  give  them  scores  of  tracts  to  proselyte 


DOCTRINES  AND  METHODS  OF  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISTS.    33 

one  person.  If  we  would  work  a  tenth  as  hard,  scarcely 
one  would  be  led  away.  People  love  to  j.^c  noticed.  The 
very  attention  they  receive  from  the  Adventists  often 
wins  them  more  than  their  arguments. 

WHAT  WILL  BE  THEIR  END? 

Adventism  is  founded  on  time,  and  time  will  kill  it.  It 
began  by  setting  a  definite  time,  1844,  for  the  end  of  the 
world,  and  failed.  Now  they  hold  that  it  must  come  in  this 
generation  beginning  in  1844.  This  is  only  another  way 
of  time  setting.  In  time  all  this  will  fail  and  overthrow 
their  system.  Then  will  come  doubt,  discouragement,  di- 
visions, apostacies,  infidelity,  and  ruin  to  souls.  This  end 
is  inevitable.  The  wider  their  influence  now,  the  more  ter- 
rible the  disaster  then.  These  wild,  enthusiastic,  fanatical 
moves  which  end  in  failure  are  the  delight  of  Satan,  as  they 
bring  disgrace  upon  the  cause  of  Christ  and  end  in  infidelity. 
That  such  will  be  the  end  of  Adventism  I  have  not  a  doubt. 

LACK  OF  EDUCATION  AND  TALENT  AMONG  THE  ADVENTIST 

LEADERS. 

The  men  whom  God  has  chosen  to  lead  out  in  the  great 
religious  movements  of  the  past  have,  with  few  exceptions, 
been  men  of  high  education,  refinement,  and  great  talents. 
Moses,  the  founder  of  Judaism,  "  was  learned  in  all  the  wis- 
dom of  the  Egyptians,  and  was  mighty  in  words  and  in 
deeds."  Acts  7 :  22.  Nehemiah,  who  restored  Jerusalem 
after  the  captivity,  was  cup-bearer  to  the  king.  Neh.  2.  So 
Daniel,  the  great  prophet,  had  "  knowledge  and  skill  in  all 
learning  and  wisdom."  Dan.  1:17.  He  was  prime  min- 
ister of  a  mighty  empire  for  many  years.  Paul  was  so  re- 
nowmed  for  his  learning,  that  the  king  said  to  him :  "  Much 
learning  doth  make  thee  mad."  Acts  26  :  24.  He  did  for 
Christianity  ten  times  more  than  all  the  other  apostles  to- 
gether.    It  is  to  him,  and  not  to  the  other  apostles,  that 


84        SEVENTH-DAT  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

the  Gentile  world  is  indebted  for  Christianity.  Then  the 
twelve,  though  uneducated,  had  the  advantage  over  all  oth&j 
reformers,  that  they  were  taught  directly  by  the  Son  of 
G.  a,  and  could  work  miracles. 

St.  Augustine,  A.  D.  353-430,  the  father  of  Christian 
theology,  to  whom  the  church  owes  almost  as  much  as  to 
PaUi,  was  highly  educated.  As  is  well  known,  Luther  was 
a  thorough  scholar,  educated  in  the  best  schools  of  his  day, 
and  filled  a  professor's  chair  in  a  university.  So  Calvin  and 
Melanchthon  were  both  profound  scholars,  occupying  pro- 
fessor .'^  chairs  in  halls  of  learning.  Zwingle,  the  great  Swiss 
reformer,  was  celebrated  for  his  learning  and  scholarship. 
Wiclif,  the  "Morning  Star  of  the  Reformation,"  was  a 
graduate  of  Oxford,  England,  and  a  doctor  of  divinity 
Cranmer,  the  great  English  reformer,  was  a  graduate,  a 
doctor  of  divinity,  archbishop,  and  regent  of  the  kingdom. 
Wesley,  the  father  of  Methodism,  was  a  graduate  of  Ox- 
ford, a  man  of  vast  reading,  the  author  or  editor  of  com- 
\  mentaries,  grammars,  dictionaries,  etc.  It  is  a  false  idea 
I  that  God  generally  uses  ignorant  men  as  leaders  in  reform, 
^  ,•<  as  the  above  great  names  will  show. 

^ :      Now  look  at  the  founders  of  our  heretical  sects.     Joanna 
„„    Southcott  was    wholly  illiterate,   a  mere   washer-woman. 
y^Yv  Ann  Lee,  the  foundress  of  the  Shakers,  received  no  educa- 
ff:^   tion,  worked  in  a  cotton  factory,  and  was  cook  in  a  hospital. 
Joseph  Smith,  the  founder  of  Mormonism,  received  no  edu 
cation,  and  Brigham  Young  very  little.     Not  one  of  these 
persons  were  of  influence  in  the  world,  outside  of  their  own 
deluded  followers. 

How  is  it  with  the  leaders  of  Adventism?  Wm.  Miller,  the 
founder,  was  reared  in  the  backwoods,  in  poverty,  and  re- 
ceived only  the  poor  advantages  of  a  common  district  school. 
Except  some  general  reading,  this  was  the  extent  of  his 
education. 


DOC5TRINES  AND  METHODS  OF  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISTS.    35 

Elder  White,  the  leader  of  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists' 
party,  only  secured  sufficient  education  to  teach  a  common 
district  school.  He  was  no  student  of  books.  In  all  my 
travels  with  him,  I  seldom  saw  him  read  half  an  hour  in  any 
book.  Of  the  languages  or  the  sciences  he  knew  nothing, 
and  little  even  of  common  history.  Mrs.  White  received 
no  school  education,  except  a  few  weeks  when  a  child.  She, 
like  Joanna  Southcott,  Ann  Lee,  and  Joseph  Smith,  was 
'  wholly  illiterate,  not  knowing  the  simplest  rules  of  grammar. 
Not  one  of  the  leading  men  in  that  work  ever  graduated  from 
college  or  university,  and  many  are  illiterate  as  Mrs.  White 
herself.  Elder  J.  N.  Andrews,  Elder  Smith,  and  one  or 
two  more,  by  diligent  study  and  reading  out  of  school,  be* 
came  well  informed  men  in  their  line.  After  Eider  White 
came  Elders  Butler  and  Haskell  as  leaders,  neither  of  them 
educated  men,  nor  of  half  the  natural  talent  of  Elder  White. 
The  present  leaders  are  small  men  also.  Such  men  are 
poorly  prepared  to  lead  out  in  a  great  reformation  in  this 
educated  age.  Not  a  man  among  them  has  now,  or  ever 
had,  a  particle  of  influence  in  the  world,  or  any  office  or 
responsible  position  in  state  or  nation.  How  different  from 
the  great  reformers  of  the  past,  who  often  had  extensive  in- 
fluence  for  good,  not  only  with  the  masses,  but  with  th© 
great  men  and  kings  of  earth.  Hence,  from  whatsoever 
side  we  view  Adventism,  it  has  none  of  the  marks  of  a  gen- 
/  nine  reformation  sent  of  God  to  bless  the  world. 

Elder  A.  A.  Phelps,  for  years  editor  of  a  First-Day  Ad- 
ventist  paper  says : 

"I  watched,  and  waited,  and  worked,  with  patience, 
meekness  and  loyalty,  in  hearty  co-operation,  and  with  an 
earnest  desire  to  see  such  unity,  enterprise,  breadth  and 
moral  power,  as  ought  to  characterize  a  scriptural  and 
heaven-inspired  movement.  How  slowly  and  reluctantly  I 
yielded  to  the  conviction — forced  by  sad  facts  and  illustra- 


36  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

tions  that  I  have  not  even  dared  to  detail — that  I  was 
only  throwing  away  my  life  in  stemming  such  waves  of 
discord,  indolence,  looseness,  narrowness,  dogmatism  and 
spiritual  death  as  I  could  not  overcome." 

Reader,  if  you  are  still  outside  of  this  spiritual  Babylon, 
take  warning  from  those  who  have  been  through  the  mill, 
and  stay  out. 

Later,  1914.  Already  strong  men  among  them  admit 
that,  (1)  Mrs.  White  has  made  many  mistakes  in  her  in- 
spired (?)  writings ;  (2)  Now  contradicts  what  she  once 
wrote  ;  (3)  Has  copied  from  many  other  authors  what  she 
claims  as  revelations  from  God ;  (4)  Has  often  been  in- 
fluenced by  others  to  write  what  they  wanted  to  help 
their  projects.  Time  has  proved  this  so  clearly  that  it  can 
no  longer  be  denied.  Hence  her  revelations  are  steadily 
losing  influence  with  their  able  men.  She  is  now  eighty- 
seven  years  old  and  is  reported  as  having  largely  lost  her 
mind.  The  laity,  specially  in  foreign  lands,  being  ignorant 
of  all  these  facts,  still  regard  her  as  the  voice  of  God  to 
them. 


(HAPTER  n. 

AN  KXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTY  EIGHT  YEARS  IN 
ADVENTI8M. 

I  long  hesitated  about  bringing  personal  matters  into  this 
book,  but  could  see  no  way  to  tell  my  story  without  it. 
My  experience  illustrates  the  power  which  error  and  super- 
stition have  over  men.  I  am  amazed  at  myself  that  I  wag 
held  there  so  long,  after  my  better  judgment  was  convinced 
that  it  was  an  error.  I  propose  to  tell  the  simple  facts,  just 
as  they  were,  hit  whom  they  may.  Public  men  become 
public  property,  and  as  such  their  conduct  and  work  should 
be  laid  open  and  discussed.  This  is  my  reason  for  criticis- 
ing the  course  of  Elder  White  and  wife,  and  others.  They 
invite  criticism  by  claiming  to  be  reformers,  better  than 
other  people. 

I  was  born  in  Kinderhook,  Branch  county,  Mich.,  Sept. 
22,  1840.  1  had  no  religious  training  till  I  was  sixteen.  I 
was  converted  among  the  Methodists  under  the  labors  of 
Rev.  Mr.  Hazzard,  and  baptized  by  him  in  1858.  I  soon 
went  to  Albion,  N.  Y.,  to  attend  school.  Here,  in  1859,  I 
heard  Elder  and  Mrs.  White.  He  preached  on  the  Sabbath 
question.  I  was  uneducated,  and  knew  but  little  about  the 
Bible.  I  had  no  idea  of  the  relation  between  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  the  law  and  the  gospel,  or  the  difference 
between  the  Sabbath  and  the  Lord's  day.  I  thought  he 
proved  that  the  seventh  day  was  still  binding,  and  that 
there  was  no  authority  for  keeping  Sunday. 

Ai  I  was  anxious  to  be  right,  I  began  keeping  Saturday, 

(37) 


38        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

out  did  not  expect  to  believe  any  more  of  their  doctrine. 
Of  course  I  attended  their  meetings  on  Saturday  and  worked 
on  Sunday.  This  separated  me  entirely  from  other  Chris' 
tians,  and  threw  me  wholly  with  the  Adventists.  I  soon 
learned  from  them  that  all  other  churches  were  Babylon,  in 
the  dark  and  under  the  frown  of  God.  Seventh-Day  Ad- 
ventists were  the  only  true  people  of  God.  They  had  ''the 
truth,"  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  They 
defended  Mr.  Miller's  work  of  1844,  believed  in  the  visions 
of  Mrs.  White,  the  sleep  of  the  dead,  the  annihilation  of 
the  wicked,  feet  washing,  etc.  At  first  these  things  staggered 
me,  and  I  thought  of  drawing  back;  but  they  explained 
them  plausibly  and  smoothed  them  over,  and  said  they  were 
no  test  anyway.  Having  no  one  to  intelligently  aid  me,  I 
began  to  see  things  as  they  did,  and  in  a  few  weeks  came  to 
believe  the  whole  system.  I  was  again  baptized,  as  their 
converts  from  other  churches  generally  are,  so  as  to  get 
clean  out  of  Babylon.  Persuaded  that  time  was  too  short, 
I  gave  up  going  to  school,  dropped  the  study  of  all  else, 
listened  to  their  preaching,  devoured  their  books  and  studied 
my  Bible  day  and  night  to  sustain  these  new  views.  I  was 
now  an  enthusiastic  believer,  and  longed  to  convert  every- 
body to  the  faith.  I  had  not  a  doubt  that  it  was  the  pure 
truth.  This  is  about  the  experience  of  all  who  go  with 
them,  as  I  have  since  learned. 

In  May,  1864, 1  was  licensed  to  preach.  Soon  began  with 
Elder  Van  Horn  at  Ithaca,  Mich.  We  had  good  success; 
raised  up  three  companies  that  year.  In  1865  worked  in 
Tuscola  county,  and  had  excellent  success.  Was  ordained 
by  Elder  White  that  year.  Up  to  this  date  I  had  not  had  a 
doubt  about  the  truthfulness  of  our  faith.  As  I  now  began 
to  see  more  of  Elder  White  and  wife,  and  the  work  at  head- 
quarters, I  learned  that  there  was  much  trouble  with  him. 
I  saw  that  he  ruled  everything,  and  that  all  greatly  feared 


EXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTY-EICHT  YEARS  IN  ADVENTISM.     39 

him.  I  saw  that  he  was  often  cross  and  unreasonable. 
This  troubled  me  a  little,  but  not  seriously.  In  1866  I  was 
sent  to  Maine  with  Elder  J.  N.  Andrews,  the  ablest  man 
among  them.  This  was  a  big  thing  for  me.  I  threw  my- 
self into  the  work  with  great  enthusiasm,  and  was  very 
happy.  Elder  Andrews  was  strong  in  the  faith  and  very 
radical,  and  I  partook  of  his  spirit.  We  had  excellent  suc- 
cess. By  this  time  1  had  become  quite  a  writer,  I  returned 
to  Battle  Creek  in  1867.  At  that  time  there  was  great 
trouble  with  Elder  White,  and  many  church  meetings  were 
held  to  investigate  the  matter.  It  was  clear  to  me  that  he 
was  wrong,  but  Mrs.  White  sustained  him  in  her  ''Testi- 
monies" and  severely  blamed  the  church.  Elder  Andrews 
and  a  few  others  proposed  to  stand  up  for  the  right,  and 
take  the  consequences.  My  sympathies  were  with  them; 
but  others  feared,  and  finally  all  wilted  and  confessed  that 
"we  have  been  blinded  by  Satan."  This  was  signed  by  the 
leading  ministers,  and  humbly  adopted  by  the  whole  church. 
See  ''Testimonies,"  Vol.  1,  page  612.  This  shook  my  faith 
a  good  deal,  and  I  began  to  question  Mrs.  White's  inspira- 
tion. I  saw  that  her  revelations  always  favored  Elder 
White  and  herself.  If  any  dared  question  their  course,  they 
soon  received  a  scathing  revelation  denouncing  the  wrath  of 
God  against  them. 

About  this  time  several  of  our  able  ministers,  with  quite  a 
party  in  the  West,  drew  off  from  the  body,  in  opposition  to 
Elder  White  and  the  visions.  They  were  denounced  as 
"rebels,"  were  doomed  to  perdition,  and  it  was  predicted 
that  they  would  soon  come  to  ruin !  But  they  have  con- 
tinued their  work  for  about  fifty  years,  having  several 
thousand  believers.  Their  headquarters  are  at  Stanberry, 
Missouri,  where  they  publish  two  papers,  books,  etc.  They 
have  done  a  good  work  in  exposing  the  fallacy  of  Mrs. 
White's  inspu^ation. 


40  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  KENOUNCED. 

But  I  dared  not  open  my  mind  to  a  soul.  1  was  only  a 
youth,  and  had  little  experience.  Older  and  stronger  men 
had  broken  down  and  confessed.  What  could  I  do  ?  I  said 
nothing,  but  felt  terribly.  I  wished  I  had  never  heard  of 
the  Adventists.  Shortly  I  was  back  on  my  field  in  Maine. 
Busy  with  my  work,  preaching  our  doctrine,  and  sur- 
rounded with  men  who  firmly  believed  it,  I  soon  got  over 
my  doubts.  I  have  since  learned  that  scores  of  others  have 
gone  through  a  similar  trial. 

In  1868  I  went  to  Massachusetts.  Being  away  from  the 
troubles  at  headquarters,  I  got  on  finely.  But  in  May, 
1869,  1  was  in  Battle  Creek  for  a  month.  Things  were  in 
bad  shape.  Elder  White  was  in  trouble  with  most  of  the 
leading  men,  and  they  with  him.  I  was  well  convinced  that 
he  was  the  real  cause  of  it  all,  but  Mrs.  White  sustained 
him,  and  that  settled  it.  They  were  God's  chosen  leaders, 
and  must  not  be  criticised  or  meddled  with.  I  felt  sad.  I 
was  working  hard  to  get  men  into  "the  truth,"  as  we  called 
it;  to  persuade  them  that  this  was  a  people  free  from  the 
faults  of  other  churches;  then  to  see  such  a  state  of  things 
among  the  leaders  disheartened  me  greatly.  So  far,  I  my- 
self had  had  no  trouble  with  any  one,  and  Elder  White  had 
been  very  cordial  to  me.  But  I  saw  then  that  if  I  ever 
came  to  be  of  any  prominence  in  the  work  I  should  have  to 
expect  the  same  treatment  from  him  that  all  of  the  others 
got.  The  more  I  saw  of  the  work,  the  more  objections  I 
saw  to  it.  I  will  not  stop  to  give  them  here,  as  I  will 
give  them  together  in  Chapter  V. 

I  had  been  so  thoroughly  drilled  in  the  Advent  doctrines 
that  I  firmly  believed  the  Bible  taught  them  all.  To  give 
up  the  Advent  faith  was  to  give  up  the  Bible.  So  all  my 
brethren  said,  and  so  I  thought.  Hence  I  swallowed  my 
doubts  and  went  on.  That  year  I  went  to  Iowa  to 
workj  where  I  remained  four  years,  laboring  with  Eldei 


EXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTY-EIGHT  YEARS  IN  ADVENTISM.     41 

Butler,  who  soon  became  president  of  their  general  confer- 
ence. We  had  good  success  and  raised  up  several  churcheSo 
I  finally  opened  my  mind  to  Elder  Butler,  and  told  him  my 
fears.  I  knew  these  things  troubled  him  as  well  as  myself, 
for  we  often  spoke  of  them.  He  helped  me  some,  and  again 
I  gathered  courage  and  went  on,  feeling  better.  Still,  I 
came  to  see  each  year  more  and  more  that  somehow  the 
thing  did  not  work  as  I  had  supposed  it  would  and  ought. 
Wherever  Elder  WTiite  and  wife  went  they  were  always  in 
trouble  with  the  brethren,  and  the  best  ones,  too.  I  came 
to  dread  to  meet  them,  or  have  them  come  where  I  was, 
for  I  knew  there  would  be  trouble  with  some  one  or  some- 
thing, and  it  never  failed  of  so  being.  I  saw  church  after 
church  split  up  by  them,  the  best  brethren  discouraged 
and  maddened  and  driven  off,  while  I  was  compelled  to 
apologize  for  them  continually.  For  years  about  this  time, 
the  main  business  at  all  our  big  meetings  was  to  listen  to 
the  complaints  of  Elder  White  against  his  brethren.  Not  a 
leading  man  escaped — Andrews,  Waggoner,  Smith,  Lough- 
borough, Amadon,  Cornell,  Aldrich,  Walker,  and  a  host  of 
others  had  to  take  their  turn  at  being  broken  on  the  wheel. 
For  hours  at  a  time,  and  times  without  number,  I  have  sat 
in  meel  ligs  and  heard  Elder  White  and  wife  denounce  these 
men,  till  I  felt  there  was  little  manhood  left  in  them.  It 
violated  all  my  ideas  of  right  and  justice,  and  stirred  my 
indignation.  Yet,  whatever  vote  was  asked  by  Elder 
White,  we  all  voted  it  unanimously,  I  with  the  rest.  Then 
I  would  go  out  alone  and  hate  myself  for  my  cowardice,  and 
despise  my  brethren  for  their  weakness. 

Elder  and  Mrs.  White  ran  and  ruled  everything  with  an 
iron  hand.  Not  a  nomination  to  office,  not  a  resolution,  not 
an  item  of  business  was  ever  acted  upon  in  business  meet- 
ings till  all  had  been  first  submitted  to  Elder  White  for  his 
approval.     Till  years  later,  we  never  saw  an  opposition  vote 


42        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

on  any  question,  for  no  one  dared  to  do  it.  Hence,  all  official 
voting  was  only  a  farce.  The  will  of  Elder  White  settled 
everything.  If  any  one  dared  to  oppose  anything,  however 
humbly,  Elder  White  or  wife  quickly  squelched  him.  Long 
years  of  such  training  taught  that  people  to  let  their  leaders 
think  for  them;  hence,  they  are  under  as  complete  subjec- 
tion as  are  the  Catholics. 

These,  with  other  things,  threw  me  into  doubt  and  dis- 
couragement, and  tempted  me  to  quit  the  work.  I  saw 
many  an  able  minister  and  scores  of  valuable  men  leave  us 
because  they  would  not  stand  such  treatment.  I  envied  the 
faith  and  confidence  of  brethren  who  went  on  ignorant  of  all 
this,  supposing  that  Battle  Creek  was  a  little  heaven,  when, 
in  fact,  it  was  as  near  purgatory  as  anything  I  could  im- 
agine. Many  poor  souls  have  gone  there  full  of  faith  and 
hope,  but  have  soon  gone  away  infidels.  In  1872  I  went  to 
Minnesota,  where  I  had  good  success.  By  this  time  I  had 
written  much,  and  so  was  well  known  to  all  our  people.  In 
July,  1873,  myself  and  wife  went  to  Colorado  to  spend  a 
few  weeks  with  Elder  White  and  wife,  in  the  mountains.  I 
soon  found  things  very  unpleasant  living  in  the  family. 
Now  my  turn  had  come  to  catch  it,  but  instead  of  knuckling 
down,  as  most  of  the  others  had,  I  told  the  elder  my  mind 
freely.  That  brought  us  into  an  open  rupture.  Mrs.  White 
heard  it  all,  but  said  nothing.  In  a  few  days  she  had  a  long 
written  "  testimony"  for  wife  and  me.  It  justified  her  hus- 
band in  everything,  and  placed  us  as  rebels  against  God, 
with  no  hope  of  heaven  only  by  a  full  surrender  to  them. 
Wife  and  I  read  it  over  many  times  with  tears  and  prayers; 
but  could  see  no  way  to  reconcile  it  with  truth.  It  contained 
many  statements  which  we  knew  were  false.  We  saw  that 
it  was  dictated  by  a  spirit  of  retaliation,  a  determination  to 
break  our  wills  or  crush  us.  For  awhile  we  were  in  great 
perplexity,  but  still  my  confidence  in  much  of  the  doctrine 


EXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTY-EIGHT  YEARS  IN  ADVENTISM.     43 

and  my  fear  of  going  wrong  held  me;  but  I  was  perfectly 
miserable  for  weeks,  not  knowing  what  to  do.  However,  I 
preached  awhile  in  Colorado  and  then  went  to  California, 
where  I  worked  with  my  hands  for  three  months,  trying  to 
settle  what  to  do.  Elders  Butler,  Smith,  White  and  others 
wrote  to  us,  and  tried  to  reconcile  us  to  the  work.  Not 
knowing  what  else  to  do,  I  finally  decided  to  forget  all  my 
objections,  and  go  along  as  before.  So  we  confessed  to 
Elder  \\niite  all  we  could  possibly,  and  he  generously  for- 
gave us  !  But  from  that  on  my  faith  in  the  inspiration  of 
Mrs.  White  was  weak.  Elder  White  was  very  friendly  to 
me  again  after  that. 

Now  the  Adventists  say  that  I  have  left  them  five  times, 
and  this  is  one  of  the  five.  It  is  utterly  untrue.  I  simply 
stopped  preaching  for  a  few  weeks,  but  did  not  withdraw 
from  the  church  nor  renounce  the  faith.  If  this  is  leaving 
them,  then  most  of  their  leading  men  have  left  them,  too, 
for  they  all  have  had  their  periods  of  trial  when  they  left 
their  work  awhile.  About  1856,  Elders  J.  N.  Andrews  and 
J.  N.  Loughborough,  who  were  then  the  most  prominent 
ministers  among  them,  and  several  other  persons,  left  the 
work  and  went  into  business  at  Waukon,  Iowa.  Mrs. 
White  gave  an  account  of  this  in  "Experience  and  Views," 
pages  219-222.  Elder  White  and  wife  went  there,  and, 
after  a  long  efibrt,  brought  them  back.  Mrs.  White  says: 
"A  dissatisfied  party  had  settled  in  Waukon.  *  *  * 
Brother  J.  N.  Loughborough  in  discouragement  had  gone 
to  work  at  his  trade.  He  was  just  about  to  purchase  land," 
etc. ,  page  222.     These  men  did  just  what  I  did. 

Elder  Uriah  Smith,  by  far  the  ablest  man  then  in  their 
ranks,  also  had  his  seasons  of  doubt,  when  he  ceased  to  work, 
and  engaged  in  secular  employments.  Hear  his  own  con- 
fession :  "  That  I  have  had  in  my  experience  occasional 
periods  of  trial,  I  do  not  deny.     There  have  been  times 


M        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

when  circumstances  seemed  very  perplexing;  when  the  way 
to  harmonize  apparently  conflicting  views  did  not  at  once 
appear,  and  under  what  have  seemed  for  the  time  strong  prov- 
ocations to  withdraw  from  the  work,  I  have  canvassed  the 
question  how  far  this  could  reasonably  be  done,  or  how  much 
of  this  work  could  consistently  be  surrendered. "  Replies 
to  Elder  Canright,  page  107.  His  own  words  show  that  he 
has  doubted  different  parts  of  the  theory,  the  same  as  I  did. 
For  years  we  were  on  intimate  terms;  often  traveled  and 
labored  together.  We  freely  talked  over  these  matters. 
His  doubts  and  trials  were  very  similar  to  my  own.  This 
ran  through  a  long  period  of  years,  till  it  was  feared  that  he 
would  quit  them  entirely.  His  wife  was  nearly  driven  to 
insanity  over  similar  trials.  Finally  they  broke  down, 
'^confessed"  the  same  as  I  did  once,  and  now  profess  to  be 
satisfied.  He  wrote  me  that  he  had  to  indorse  Mrs.  White's 
visions  out  of  policy.  The  thing  is  so  unreasonable,  thai 
most  of  them  at  times  are  more  or  less  troubled  over  itj 
just  as  1  was.  In  the  language  of  J.  W.  Morton,  "1  pity 
their  delusions,  and  abominate  the  spiritual  tyranny  by 
which  they  and  others  are  held  to  the  most  unscriptural 
dogmas.  Even  Mr.  Smith,  for  whom,  however  he  may  de 
nounce  me,  I  entertain  only  the  most  kindly  feelings,  is  in 
a  position  that  calls  for  tender  commiseration.  He  is  ex- 
pected, as  the  great  man  of  the  denomination  (for  he  un- 
doubtedly is  by  far  the  ablest  man  they  have),  to  give  a  full 
and  explicit  endorsement  to  Mrs.  White's  claims  of  inspira- 
tion; and  yet  whoever  scans  his  public  utterances  on  this 
point — especially  he  who  has  skill  to  'read  between  the 
lines' — can  see  that  his  endorsement  is  so  feeble  as  to  be  no 
endorsement  at  alL  Such  a  position  is  one  in  which  I  would 
not  place  my  worst  enemy.  He  is,  in  part  at  least,  under 
the  heel  of  a  spiritual  tyranny.  Oh,  that  Uriah  Smith  had 
the  courage,  and  the  manliness,  to  assert,  before  God  and 


EXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTY- EIGHT  YEARS  IN  ADVENTISM.     45 

man,  his  right  to  that '  soul  liberty '  which  is  the  inherit- 
ance of  every  child  of  God  !  " 

Elder  Geo.  I.  Butler,  who  for  many  years  took  the  place 
of  Elder  White  as  leader  of  the  denomination,  got  into 
trial  with  his  brethren,  and,  practically,  out  of  the  work. 
Till  middle  life  he  was  a  small  farmer.  Naturally  he  was 
a  humble,  good  man,  with  a  strong  sense  of  fairness. 
Elder  White  became  jealous  of  him.  Later,  Mrs.  White 
also  turned  against  him  and  required  a  servile  submission 
which  he  would  not  make.  Said  when  he  could  not  be  an 
Adventist,  and  be  a  man,  then  he  would  be  a  man,  as 
others  had  decided.  Disappointed  and  soured,  under  pre- 
text of  ill-health,  he  went  off  to  Florida  on  a  little  farm — 
another  example  of  the  blighting  effect  of  Adventism. 
He  is  now  doing  what  I  did  two  or  three  times,  only  from 
a  different  cause.     Has  he,  then,  left  them  ? 

In  1874:  Elder  White  had  arranged  to  have  a  big  debate 
held  at  Napa  City,  Cal.,  between  Elder  Miles  Grant,  of 
Boston,  Mass.,  and  one  of  our  ministers.  Though  Elder 
White  and  wife,  Elder  Cornell  and  Elder  Loughborough, 
their  ablest  men,  were  there,  they  selected  myself  to  de- 
fend our  side,  which  I  did  for  about  a  week,  while  the  other 
ministers  sat  by.  I  mention  this  to  show  the  confidence 
they  had  in  me,  though  I  had  been  in  so  great  a  trial  but  a 
few  months  before.  In  1875  we  returned  to  Michigan. 
Elder  Butler  was  now  out  with  Elder  White,  who  took 
every  possible  opportunity  to  snub  him;  but  I  was  in  high 
favor,  was  sent  to  attend  their  state  meetings  in  Vermont, 
Kansas,  Ohio  and  Indiana.  With  Elder  Smith,  was  sent  as 
delegate  to  the  Seventh-Day  Baptist  General  Conference. 
In  1876  I  was  sent  to  Minnesota,  then  to  Texas,  and  so  on 
through  most  of  the  Southern  States,  to  look  after  our  in- 
terests there.  Each  year  greater  responsibilities  were  laid 
upon  me.    That  year  I  raised  up  a  large  church  at  Rome, 


46        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

New  York,  and  labored  over  the  State.  Went  with  Eldel 
White  and  wife  to  Indiana  and  Illinois,  and  was  then  sent 
to  Kansas  to  hold  a  debate,  and  to  Missouri  for  the  same 
purpose.  This  year  1  was  elected  a  member  of  the  General 
Conference  Committee  of  three,  with  Elder  White  and  Elder 
Haskell,  and  continued  on  the  committee  two  years.  It  is 
the  highest  official  authority  in  the  denomination. 

In  18Y7  I  went  to  New  England,  where  I  raised  up  two 
churches  and  did  other  work.  I  spent  1878  in  general  work 
in  various  States,  as  Massachusetts,  Michigan,  New  York, 
Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Colorado,  and  Ohio.  In  the 
fall  was  president  of  the  Ohio  conference.  In  1879  labored 
in  Michigan,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee.  At 
the  general  conference  at  Battle  Creek  in  the  fall,  things 
were  in  a  bad  shape.  Elder  White  was  cross,  and  Mrs. 
White  bore  down  heavy  on  several  ministers.  Harshness, 
fault-finding  and  trials  were  the  order  of  the  day.  I  felt 
that  there  was  very  little  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  present.  I 
got  away  as  quickly  as  possible.  I  saw  more  and  more 
clearly  that  a  spirit  of  oppression,  criticism,  distrust  and 
dissension  was  the  result  of  our  work,  instead  of  meekness, 
gentleness,  and  love  among  brethren.  For  the  next  whole 
year  these  feelings  grew  upon  me,  till  I  began  to  fear  we 
were  doing  more  harm  than  good.  My  work  called  me 
among  old  churches,  where  I  could  see  the  fruit  of  it.  Gen- 
erally they  were  cold  and  dead,  backslidden,  or  in  a  quarrel, 
or  nearly  extinct,  where  once  they  had  been  large  and  flour- 
ishing churches.  I  lost  heart  to  raise  up  more  churches  to 
go  in  the  same  way.  One  day  I  would  decide  to  quit  them 
entirely,  and  the  next  day  I  would  resolve  to  go  on  and  do 
the  best  I  could.  I  never  sufiered  more  mental  anguish  in 
my  life.  I  labored  that  year  in  New  Yorkj  Pennsylvania, 
Illinois,  Michigan  and  Ohio. 
In  the  fall  of  1880 1  resolved  to  leave  the  Adventists,  and, 


EXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTY-EIGHT  YEARS  IN  ADVENTISM.     47 

if  I  could,  go  with  some  other  church.  I  was  president  of 
the  Ohio  conference.  Our  annual  state  meeting  was  at 
Clyde,  Ohio.  Elder  and  Mrs.  White  were  there.  My 
mind  was  made  up  to  leave  them  as  soon  as  the  meeting  was 
over.  Against  my  protest  they  re-elected  me  president. 
Mrs.  White  urged  it.  Said  I  was  just  the  man  for  the 
place;  yet  her  special  claim  is  to  be  able  to  reveal  the  hidden 
wrongs  in  the  church.  Here  was  an  important  matter. 
Why  did  she  not  have  a  revelation  about  it  ?  No,  I  was 
all  right  so  far  as  she  knew.  The  next  week  I  resigned, 
went  east,  and  wrote  Elder  White  that  I  would  go  with 
them  no  longer.  Then  she  sent  me  a  long  written  revelation, 
denouncing  me  as  a  child  of  hell,  and  one  of  the  wickedest 
of  men,  though  only  two  weeks  before  she  thought  me  fit  to 
be  president  of  a  conference! 

For  three  months  I  taught  elocution.  1  knew  not  what 
to  do.  I  talked  with  ministers  of  other  churches,  but  they 
did  not  seem  to  know  how  to  help  me.  I  could  settle  on 
nothing.  I  held  on  to  my  Christianity  and  love  for  Christ 
and  the  Bible,  and  preached  and  worked  as  I  had  oppor- 
tunity. I  was  glad  I  had  decided  to  leave  the  Adventists, 
and  felt  much  better.  Finally  I  met  my  present  wife,  who 
was  an  Adventist.  Then  I  had  a  long  talk  with  Elder 
Butler,  Elder  White,  Mrs.  White  and  others,  and  was  per- 
suaded that  things  were  not  as  I  had  imagined.  They  said 
I  was  in  the  dark,  led  by  Satan,  and  would  go  to  ruin.  All 
the  influence  of  old  friends,  associations,  habits  and  long 
cultivated  ideas  came  up  and  were  too  strong  for  my  better 
judgment.  I  yielded,  and  resolved  again  to  live  and  die  with 
them.  In  my  judgment  and  conscience  I  was  ashamed  of  the 
surrender  I  had  made,  yet  I  tried  to  feel  right  and  go  on. 

DEATH   OF   ELDER  ^VHITE. 

Early  in  1881  I  went  with  Elder  White  to  New  York. 
By  this  time  he  had  lost  the  leadership  of  the  people. 


48        SEVENTH-DAT  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Elders  Butler  and  Haskell  had  taken  his  place,  and  henw 
he  was  very  hostile  to  them,  working  against  them,  and 
planning  all  the  while  to  get  them  out  and  get  back  in  again 
himself.  But  the  people  had  largely  lost  confidence  in  him 
as  a  leader.  He  wished  me  to  work  with  him  against  them, 
saying  that  we  would  then  be  on  the  General  Conference 
Committee  together.  He  had  good  grounds  to  oppose 
Haskell,  who  was  always  a  crafty,  underhanded  man. 
Elder  White  wrote  me  thus: — "February  11,  1881:  I  wish 
Elder  Haskell  were  an  open,  frank  man,  so  I  need  not 
watch  him."  Again:— "Battle  Creek,  Mich.,  May  24, 
1881:  *  *  *  Elders  Butler  and  Haskell  have  had  an 
influence  over  her  [his  wife]  that  I  hope  to  see  broken.  It 
has  nearly  ruined  her.  These  men  must  not  be  suffered  by 
our  people  to  do  as  they  have  done.  *  ^  *  j  want  you 
to  unite  with  me.  *  *  It  is  time  there  was  a  change  in 
the  offices  of  the  General  Conference.  I  trust  that  if  we 
are  true  and  faithful,  the  Lord  will  be  pleased  that  we 
should  constitute  two  of  that  board." 

I  could  give  much  more  to  show  how  little  confidence  the 
leading  men  had  in  each  other.  I  wrote  Elder  White  that 
I  could  not  unite  with  him  nor  work  with  him.  July  13, 
1881,  he  wrote  me  again:  "I  have  repeatedly  abused  you, 
and  if  you  go  to  destruction,  where  many,  to  say  the  least, 
are  willing  you  should  go,  I  should  ever  feel  that  I  had 
taken  a  part  in  your  destruction.  *  *  *  I  do  not  see 
how  any  man  can  labor  with  me."  Soon  after  this  he  died. 
I  have  no  doubt  that  Elder  White  believed  in  the  Advent 
doctrine,  and  persuaded  himself  that  he  w^as  called  of  God 
to  bo  a  leader.  He  had  some  excellent  qualities,  and  doubt- 
less meant  to  be  a  Christian,  but  his  strong  desire  to  rule 
and  run  everything,  together  with  an  irritable  temper,  kept 
him  always  in  trouble  with  some  one.  No  one  could  work 
with  him  long  in  peace.     Elder  Butler  told  me  that  hia 


EXPERLENOE  OF  TWENTY-EIGHT  YEABS  IN  ADVENTISM.     4:9 

death  was  providential  to  save  the  body  from  a  rupture. 
Mrs.  White  was  so  offended  at  Butler,  that  she  would  haye 
no  communication  with  him  for  a  long  while.  All  these 
things  helped  me  to  see  that  I  was  being  led  by  selfish,  am. 
bitious  men,  who  were  poor  samples  of  religious  reformers. 

That  year  I  labored  in  Canada,  Vermont,  Maine,  New 
England,  and  Michigan,  and  was  elected  member  of  the 
State  Executive  Committee  of  Michigan  that  fall.  I  worked 
another  year  in  Michigan.  But  I  was  unhappy ;  I  could 
not  get  over  my  doubts;  I  had  no  heart  in  the  work.  Sev- 
eral leading  ministers  in  the  State  felt  about  the  same.  I 
then  decided  to  quietly  drop  out  of  the  ministry  and  go  to 
farming.  This  I  did  for  two  years,  but  retained  my  mem- 
bership with  the  church  and  worked  right  along  with  them. 
But  I  was  in  purgatory  all  the  time,  trying  to  believe  what 
I  could  not.  Yet  I  was  not  settled  on  any  other  church, 
and  feared  I  might  go  wrong,  and  so  stood  still.  In  the 
fall  of  1884,  Elder  Buller,  my  old  friend,  and  now  at  the 
head  of  the  Advent  work,  made  a  great  effort  to  get  me 
reconciled  and  back  at  work  again.  He  wrote  me  several 
times,  to  which  I  made  no  answer.  Finally  he  telegraphed 
me,  and  paid  my  fare  to  a  camp-meeting.  Here  1  met  old 
friends  and  associations,  tried  to  see  things  as  favorable  as 
possible,  heard  explanations,  etc. ,  etc. ,  till  at  last  I  yielded 
again.  I  was  sick  of  an  undecided  position.  I  thought  I 
could  do  some  good  here  anyway;  all  my  friends  were  here-, 
I  believed  much  of  the  doctrine  still,  and  I  might  go  to  ruin 
if  I  left  them,  etc.  Now  I  resolved  to  swallow  all  my 
doubts,  believe  the  whole  thing  anyway,  and  stay  with  them 
for  better  or  for  worse.  So  I  made  a  strong  confession,  of 
which  I  was  ashamed  before  it  was  cold. 

Was  I  satisfied  ?  No.  Deep  in  my  heart  I  was  ashamed 
of  myself,  but  tried  to  feel  that  it  was  not  so.  But  soon  I 
felt  better,  because  I  had  decided.     Gradually  my  faith  cam« 


50        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

back,  till  I  again  really  felt  strong  in  the  whole  doctrine,  and 
had  no  idea  I  should  ever  leave  it  again.  In  a  few  weeks  I 
was  sent  to  attend  large  meetings  in  Pennsylvania,  New 
York,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  and  New  England;  assisted  in  re- 
vival meetings  in  Battle  Creek;  was  appointed  with  Elder 
Butler  to  lecture  before  the  ministers  on  how  to  labor  suc- 
cessfully; conducted  a  similar  course  in  the  Academy  at 
South  Lancaster,  Mass. ;  was  at  the  state  meetings  in  New 
York,  Michigan,  Indiana  and  Ohio.  In  the  spring  of  1886 
was  appointed  to  lecture  before  the  theological  class  in  the 
Battle  Creek  College,  and  Associate  Editor  of  the  Sickle. 

By  my  urgent  appeal,  an  effort  was  made  to  bring  up  our 
ministers  to  some  plan  of  study  in  which  they  are  very 
deficient.  I  was  on  the  committee  to  arrange  this.  I  selected 
the  course  of  studies  and  framed  all  the  questions,  by  which 
they  were  to  be  examined.  I  was  then  furnished  a  short- 
hand reporter,  and  in  the  summer  was  sent  to  ten  different 
states,  namely,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Kansas,  Colorado, 
Iowa,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Dakota,  and  Michigan,  to  at- 
tend their  state  conferences,  examine  their  ministers,  report 
their  meetings  for  the  daily  press,  etc.,  and  this  I  did.  In 
our  conflict  with  the  Disciples  at  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  it  was 
agreed  that  each  side  should  select  a  representative  man  and 
hold  a  debate  on  the  Sabbath  question.  They  selected  Pro- 
fessor D.  R.  Dungan,  president  of  Drake  University.  Our 
people  selected  me.  We  expected  a  notable  time,  and  I 
made  every  possible  effort  to  be  ready.  That  preparation 
did  much  to  convince  me  of  the  unsoundness  of  some  of  our 
positions  on  the  covenants,  the  two  laws,  etc.  In  our  Gen- 
eral Conference  that  fall,  a  sharp  division  occurred  between 
our  leading  men  over  the  law  in  Galatians.  One  party  held 
it  was  the  ceremonial  law,  the  other  the  moral  law — a  square 
contradiction.  After  a  long  and  warm  discussion  the  con« 
ference  closed,   each    party  more  confident  than  before. 


EXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTY-EIGHT  YEARS  IN  ADVENTISM.     51 

There  was  also  much  disagreement  over  other  points  of  doc- 
trine, and  a  good  deal  of  warm  party  feeling.  This,  with 
other  things,  brought  up  my  old  feelings  of  doubt,  and  de- 
cided me  that  it  was  time  for  me  now  to  examine  and 
think  for  myself,  and  not  be  led  nor  intimidated  by  men 
who  could  not  agree  among  themselves. 

I  used  every  minute  I  could  get  for  several  weeks,  care- 
fully and  prayerfully  examining  all  the  evidence  on  the 
Sabbath,  the  law,  the  sanctuary,  the  visions,  etc. ,  till  I  had 
not  a  doubt  left  that  the  Seventh-Day  Advent  faith  was  a 
delusion.  Then  I  laid  the  matter  before  the  leading  men  at 
Battle  Creek,  resigned  all  the  positions  I  held,  and  asked  to 
be  dismissed  from  the  church.  This  was  granted  February 
IT,  1887.  That  was  the  first  and  only  time  I  ever  withdrew 
from  the  church,  nor  was  any  charge  ever  made  against  me 
during  the  twenty-eight  years  I  was  with  them.  As  soon 
as  I  took  my  stand  firmly,  to  be  a  free  man  and  think  for 
myself,  a  great  burden,  which  I  had  carried  all  these  years, 
rolled  off*.  I  felt  like  a  new  man.  At  last  I  was  out  of 
bondage.  1  have  never  for  a  moment  regretted  the  step  I 
took. 

They  now  report  that  I  left  them  four  or  five  times 
before,  and  then  went  back.  This  is  entirely  untrue.  From 
the  time  I  joined  them,  in  1859,  till  I  withdrew,  in  1887, 
I  remained  in  good  standing  in  that  church.  After  I  w^as 
licensed  to  preach  in  1861,  my  credentials  were  renewed 
each  year  except  one,  when  I  was  farming  and  did  not  ask 
for  them.  Till  I  left  them,  in  1887,  I  never  preached  nor 
wrote  against  them  once;  nor  did  I  unite  with  any  other 
church,  nor  teach  any  doctrine  contrary  to  theirs.  Let 
them  deny  any  of  these  statements  if  they  can.  They  say  I 
may  yet  return  to  them.  They  know  better.  The  moment 
I  took  my  stand  decidedly,  that  matter  was  settled  forever. 
The  fact  that  I  remained  with  them  under  all  these  trials  fol 


52        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED, 

twenty-eight  years,  shows  I  was  not  a  vacillating  man,  as 
they  now  try  to  think. 

WHY  I  DID  NOT  LEAVE  THEM  SOONER. 

I  am  often  asked  why  I  did  not  leave  them  sooner  ?  Why 
it  took  me  so  long  to  find  that  it  was  an  error  ?  Then  the 
Adventists  affirm  that  I  must  have  been  dishonest  while 
with  them,  or  I  am  dishonest  now.  They  say  I  am  an 
apostate  now,  because  I  left  them  and  joined  the  Baptists. 
My  answer  is  this:  If  to  change  one's  opinion  and  join  another 
church  makes  one  an  apostate,  then  more  than  half  their 
members  are  apostates,  for  they  have  come  from  other 
churches  to  join  the  Adventists.  Again,  they  circulate 
and  commend  highly  a  book  called  "Fifty  Years  in  Rome," 
written  by  a  man  who  was  many  years  a  learned  priest  in 
the  Roman  church.  They  say  that  his  high  standing  and 
long  experience  in  that  church  makes  his  book  invaluable. 
But  they  say  that  the  fact  that  I  was  with  them  in  high 
standing  so  long,  and  now  have  left  them,  only  proves  that 
I  am  a  hypocrite! 

Any  candid  man  can  see  the  inconsistency  of  their  posi- 
tions. I  united  with  the  Adventists  when  I  was  a  mere 
boy,  uneducated,  with  no  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  of  history, 
or  of  other  churches.  I  went  into  it  through  ignorance. 
For  years  my  zeal  for  that  faith,  and  my  unbounded  confi- 
dence in  its  leaders,  blinded  me  to  their  errors.  But,  as  I 
grew  older,  read  my  Bible  more,  read  history,  met  with 
other  churches,  heard  sermons  and  read  books  against  Ad- 
ventism,  became  better  acquainted  with  our  leaders,  with 
the  inside  workings  of  the  church,  learned  more  about  its 
unfavorable  origin,  the  many  mistakes  we  had  made,  saw 
the  fruit  of  it  in  old  churches,  on  families  and  society,  got 
hold  of  the  early  writings  of  Mrs.  White  and  others;  gradu- 
sdly  I  began  to  see  that  Adventism  was  not  just  what  I  had 


EXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTY-EIGHT  YEARS  IN  ADVENTISM.     53 

first  supposed  it  to  be.  When  I  embraced  it  in  1859, 
Seventh-Day  Adventism  was  only  fourteen  years  old,  the 
believers  were  few,  and  it  was  comparatively  untried.  But 
when  Adventism  was  twenty-five  years  older,  ten  times  as 
large,  and  had  fully  developed  its  spirit  and  shown  its  fruits, 
when  I  had  had  the  education,  observation  and  experience 
of  a  quarter  of  a  century,  I  think  my  judgment  in  the 
matter  ought  to  be  worth  more  than  when  I  embraced  it  as 
a  green  boy. 

Again,  it  was  only  during  the  last  few  years  that  I  gained 
possession  of  early  Advent  documents,  which  show  how 
they  now  deny  and  contradict  what  they  once  taught. 
These  are  now  either  suppressed  or  kept  out  of  sight,  so  that 
not  one  in  a  thousand  of  them  knows  or  will  believe  that 
they  ever  existed.  My  doubts  of  the  system  did  not  come 
to  me  all  at  once  and  clearly.  It  was  well  known  that  for 
the  last  dozen  years  I  was  with  them,  I  was  greatly  troubled 
over  these  things.  Gradu  ally,  year  by  year,  the  evidence 
accumulated,  till  at  last  it  overbalanced  the  doctrine,  and 
then  reluctantly  and  sorrowfully  I  had  to  abandon  and  re- 
nounce it.  God  pity  the  soul  that  has  to  go  through  what 
I  did  to  be  honest  to  his  convictions  of  right. 

POSITIONS  WHICH  I  HELD   WHEN  I  LEFT  THEM. 

Notwithstanding  it  was  well  known  to  all  that  I  frequently 
had  serious  doubts  about  their  faith,  yet,  as  soon  as  I  took 
hold  with  them  again,  each  time  they  immediately  put  me 
forward  and  set  me  at  the  most  important  work.  Elder  Butler 
says:  "He  doubtless  would  have  been  [elected  to  important 
office]  had  he  not  proved  himself  unreliable  in  so  many  in- 
stances. His  ability  would  have  justified  it. " — Review  and 
Hei'old  Extra,  Nov.  22, 1887.  Suppose,  now,  that  I  had  been 
an  office-seeking  man,  caring  more  for  place  and  position  than 
for  truth  and  conscience,   what  would  I  have  done?    I 


64:  SEYENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

would  have  gone  right  along,  pretending  to  be  full  in  faith 
and  in  harmony  with  them.  But  instead  of  this,  time  and 
again,  I  went  directly  to  their  influential  men,  Elders  White, 
Butler,  Haskell,  etc.,  and  told  them  my  doubts.  Let  can- 
did men  judge  of  my  motives. 

The  day  I  left  them  I  held  the  following  positions:  Was 
teacher  of  theology  in  their  college  at  Battle  Creek,  where  I 
had  a  class  of  nearly  two  hundred  of  their  best  young  peo- 
ple; was  associate  editor  of  the  Gospel  SicJcle;  was  writing 
the  lessons  for  all  their  Sabbath  Schools  throughout  the 
world;  had  the  charge  of  some  eighteen  churches  in  Michi- 
gan; was  member  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Inter- 
national Sabbath  School  Association;  member  of  the  Execu- 
tive Committee  of  the  Michigan  State  Sabbath  School  Asso- 
ciation; and  at  the  last  session  of  the  general  conference 
was  chairman  of  the  International  Sabbath  School  Associa- 
tion, and  was  on  nine  different  committees,  several  of  them 
the  most  important  in  the  conference,  as  the  one  on  dis- 
tribution of  laborers  over  all  the  world,  the  theological 
committee,  the  one  on  camp  meetings,  on  a  special  course 
of  study  in  our  college,  on  the  improvement  of  the  ministry, 
etc.  This  shows  what  they  thought  of  my  ability.  I  had 
just  gotten  out  a  new  pamphlet,  "Critical  Notes,"  of  which 
they  printed  an  edition  of  10,000  after  I  left  them.  Others 
of  my  works  they  have  revised,  left  my  name  off",  and  use 
them  still.  Why  reprint  mine  after  I  have  left  them  and 
renounced  what  they  teach  ?  They  now  say  that  my  writ- 
ings are  cheap  and  worthless.  But  while  I  was  with  them 
they  published  over  twenty  different  productions  of  mine,  and 
circulated  hundreds  of  thousands  of  them,  translated  several 
of  them  into  other  languages,  and  paid  me  hundreds  of  dol- 
lars for  them.  Strange  that  all  at  once  1  have  become  so 
imbecile,  and  my  writings  so  worthless.  Any  one  can  see 
the  animus  of  all  this. 


EXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTY-EIGHT  YEARS  IN  ADVENTISM.     66 

Elder  Smith,  in  Replies  to  Canright,  page  25,  says  I  left 
them  at  a  time  when  my  withdrawal  embarrassed  them  more 
than  it  would  have  done  at  any  other  time.  This  confesses 
that  I  was  becoming  more  and  more  useful  to  them,  and  all 
know  that  I  was.  At  the  time  I  left  I  was  getting  higher 
pay  than  ever  before,  and  was  on  friendly  terms  with  all. 
All  the  leading  men,  as  Butler,  Haskell,  Smith,  etc.,  were 
my  warm  personal  friends,  ready  to  do  all  in  their  power  to 
assist  me.  Had  I  desired  office,  or  better  position,  all  I  had 
to  do  was  to  go  right  along  without  wavering,  and  positions 
would  come  to  me  faster  than  I  could  fill  them.  But  if  I 
left  them,  where  could  I  go?  What  could  I  do?  How 
even  make  a  living  ?  I  took  this  all  in,  and  it  required  all 
the  courage  and  faith  in  God  I  could  master  to  take  the 
risk. 

It  cost  me  a  terrible  struggle  and  a  great  sacrifice,  for  in 
doing  it  I  had  to  leave  all  my  life-long  friends,  the  cherished 
hopes  of  my  youth,  the  whole  work  of  my  life,  all  the  means 
of  my  support,  every  honorable  position  I  held,  and  bring 
upon  myself  reproach,  hatred  and  persecution.  I  had  to 
begin  life  anew,  among  strangers,  with  untried  methods,  un- 
certain where  to  go  or  what  to  do.  No  one  who  has  not  tried 
it  can  ever  begin  to  realize  the  fearful  struggle  it  requires. 
It  is  the  dread  of  all  this  which  holds  many  with  them  who 
are  yet  dissatisfied  where  they  are.  I  know  that  this  is  so, 
Por  many  have  confessed  it  to  me,  and  yet  remained  where 
ihey  were.  Anyone  of  candor  and  fairness  can  see  readily 
that  self-interest  and  personal  ambition  would  have  held  me 
with  them.  Yet,  as  soon  as  I  did  leave  them,  though  I 
went  out  quietly  and  peaceably,  and  let  them  entirely  alone, 
and  even  spoke  favorably  of  them,  they  immediately  attrib- 
uted to  me  all  sorts  of  evil  motives,  base  sins,  and  ambitious 
designs.  They  seemed  to  feel  it  a  sacred  duty  to  blast  my 
reputation,  and  destroy  my  influence,  if  possible.     "Apo&- 


66       SEVENTH-DAY  ADYENTISM  KENOUNCED. 

tate  "  was  the  epithet  all  applied  to  me.  I  was  compared 
to  Baalam,  to  Kora,  Dathan  and  Abiraui,  to  Judas,  Demas, 
and  a  whole  list  of  evil  characters.  Not  one  honest  or 
worthy  motive  was  granted  me.  The  meanest  and  wick- 
edest reports  were  circulated  as  to  what  I  had  done  or  said 
— things  that  I  would  despise  even  to  think  of.  Yet  all 
were  eagerly  accepted  and  believed  as  undoubted  truth. 
But  I  expected  it,  for  it  is  the  way  all  are  treated  who 
dare  to  leave  them  and  give  a  reason  for  it. 

During  the  twenty  years  now  since  I  left  them,  they  have 
had  spies  constantly  on  my  track,  who  have  watched  and 
reported  the  least  thing  I  have  said  or  done,  to  torture  it 
into  evil,  if  possible.  This  they  circulate  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth,  and  it  comes  back  to  me  in  newspapers  and  letters. 
They  have  issued  four  different  publications  against  me,  and 
Mrs.  White,  in  her  last  "  revelation,"  has  devoted  three  ar- 
ticles to  myself  !  Yet  I  don't  amount  to  anything  ;  never 
did  !  "  Sour  grapes,"  you  see.  It  has  been  widely  reported 
that  I  was  smitten  with  a  terrible  disease,  had  broken  up 
my  church,  been  expelled  from  the  denomination,  and 
more  yet,  concerning  all  which  the  Lord  judge  between  us. 
The  pastors  of  all  the  churches  here,  and  public  men  of  the 
place  have  had  to  make  written  statements  to  meet  these 
attacks  in  distant  states.  Sometimes  this  has  seemed  hard 
to  bear,  but  knowing  that  I  was  right,  I  have  had  grace 
and  patience  to  keep  steadily  at  my  work,  and  leave  the 
rest  with  God  and  my  friends. 

I  am  in  constant  receipt  of  letters  from  all  parts  of  the 
country,  saying  that  the  Adventists  afRrm  that  I  have  asked 
to  be  taken  back  among  them !  They  will  report  it  till  I 
die,  and  long  after.  This  book  shall  be  my  answer.  They 
are  so  certain  that  the  curse  of  God  will  follow  all  who 
leave  them,  or  that  they  will  become  infidels,  or  return  to 
them,  that  they  cannot  be  reconciled  to  have  it  otherwise. 


EXPERIENCE  OF  TWENTT-EIGHT  YEARS  IN  ADVENTI8M.     67 
A  SAMPLE  LETTER. 

"Glenwood  Springs,  Colo.,  March  29,  1889. 
D.  M.  Canright,  Otsego,  Mich.: 

My  Dear  Friend  and  Brother: — If  the  lightning's  shiver- 
ing crash  had  torn  my  scalp  loose  from  my  head,  I  would 
not  have  been  more  surprised  than  I  was  to-day  by  having 
placed  in  my  hands  your  pamphlet  entitled  '^The  Jewish 
Sabbath. "  I  have  read  after  you  for  years,  sold  your  valu- 
able works,  and  preached  the  ''Third  Angel's  Message." 
Now,  1  wish  to  ask  you,  how  do  our  people  treat  you?  To 
my  knowledge  you  were  a  great  favorite,  and  quoted  oftener 
than  any  standing  near  the  head.  Do  they  go  back  on  you 
as  hard  as  they  did  on  Snook  ?  I  suppose  that  your  great 
research  and  life-long  study  of  the  subject  in  hand  goes  for 
nothing  with  them,  and  that  you  are  classed  among  the 
fallen  angels.  F.  A.  B." 

ordained  a  baptist  minister. 

April  19,  1887,  at  Otsego,  Mich.,  where  I  had  lived  for 
eight  years,  I  was  ordained  as  a  minister  of  the  Regular 
Baptist  Church,  by  an  exceptionally  large  council,  composed 
of  several  of  the  ablest  ministers  of  the  state.  The  Otsego 
Union  of  that  date  says:  "Regularly  appointed  delegates 
were  present  from  Baptist  churches  in  Grand  Rapids,  Kala- 
mazoo, Plainwell,  Three  Rivers,  White  Pigeon,  Allegan, 
Battle  Creek,  Paw  Paw,  Hickory  Corners,  Prairieville  and 
Otsego.  Rev.  A.  E.  Mather,  D.D.,  of  Battle  Creek,  was 
elected  moderator  of  the  council,  and  Rev.  T.  M.  Shanafelt, 
D.  D. ,  of  Three  Rivers,  secretary.  The  order  of  exercises 
was  as  follows:  Reading  of  the  Scriptures,  by  Rev.  H.  A. 
Rose,  of  Kalamazoo;  prayer,  by  Rev.  D.  Mulhern,  D.D.,  of 
Grand  Rapids;  ordination  sermon,  by  Rev.  Kendall  Brooks, 
D.D.,  President  of  Kalamazoo  College;  prayer  of  ordina- 
tion, by  Rev.  M.  W.  Haynes,  of  Kalamazoo,  with  laying  on 


68        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

of  hands  by  Rev.  H.  B.  Taft,  of  White  Pigeon,  Rev.  E.  A. 
Gay,  of  Allegan,  and  Rev.  H.  A.  Rose,  of  Kalamazoo; 
hand  of  fellowship,  by  Rev.  T.  F.  Babcock,  of  Prairieville; 
charge  to  the  pastor,  by  Rev.  L.  B.  Fish,  of  Paw  Paw; 
charge  to  the  church,  by  Rev.  I.  Butterfield,  of  Grand 
Rapids. 

*  'Rev.  D.  M.  Canright  has  thus  been  fully  recognized  by  a 
large  and  representative  council  as  a  regular  Baptist  minis- 
ter, and  pastor  of  the  Baptist  church  in  Otsego." 

I  have  never  regretted  leaving  the  Adventists,  nor  for  one 
moment  had  the  shghtest  desire  to  return. 


CHAPTER  in. 
ADVENTISM  A  YOKE  OF  BONDAGE. 

Largely,  people  are  drawn  into  the  Seventh-Day  doctrine 
through  fear^  fear  of  being  damned  if  they  refuse.  Once 
in,  they  try  to  feel  happy,  but  very  few  really  are.  With  a 
large  class,  the  more  intelligent  ones,  there  are  so  many 
doubts  and  fears,  such  a  sensible  want  of  something  which 
they  do  not  find,  that  they  are  unhappy.  Many  of  their 
ministers  have  gone  through  the  same  trials  that  I  have, 
and  scores  have  left  them,  as  I  did,  while  others  have  fixed 
it  up  and  remained  with  them.  Elder  White  himself  had 
doubts.  Mrs.  White  says  of  him:  "He  should  make  it  a 
rule  not  to  talk  unbelief  or  discouragement. "  "My  husband 
has  cherished  this  darkness  so  long  by  living  over  the  un- 
happy past,  that  he  has  but  little  power  to  control  his  mind 
when  dwelling  upon  these  things."  Testimonies, Yol.  HI, 
pages  96,  97.  Mrs.  White  herself,  as  we  might  expect,  is 
troubled  with  infidelity.  She  says:  **In  the  night  I  have 
awakened  my  husband,  saying,  'I  am  afraid  that  I  shall 
become  an  infidel.'"  Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  page 597.  Near- 
ly all  their  prominent  ministers  had  their  times  of  trial,  the 
same  as  I  did,  when  they  ceased  preaching  and  went  at 
other  work,  as  we  have  seen. 

I  will  quote  a  few  words  from  letters  received:  "I  have 
had  many  blue  times  in  my  experience  because  of  these 
doubts.  *  *  Once  I  decided  that  I  must  follow  the  convic- 
tions of  my  own  judgment  in  these  things;  but  when  the 
time  came  the  pressure  was  so  strong  that  I  tried  to  convince 
myself  that  I  was  wrong.    *   *   The  facts  are,  I  am  just  mis- 

C59) 


60        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

erable.   *  *  It  seems  like  a  terrible  thing  to  take  a  course 
that  will  cause  all  the  cherished  friends  of  this  world  to  look 
upon  you  as  one  fallen  from  grace;  and  here  I  am,  bound 
with  these  chains."     Another  writes;  "  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  views  held  by  Seventh-Day  Adventists  are  so  burden- 
some that  they  will  crush  me.     They  are  a  yoke  of  bondage 
which  I  cannot  stand  up  under.     Still  I  do  want  to  be 
right."    Another  minister,  D.  H.  Lamson,  writes:  "How 
am  I  straightened,  while  the  fetters  are  being  forged  for 
most  unwilling  limbs!  *  *  What  distress  we  are  in  as  a  peo- 
ple !   how  miserable  !   and  is  there  no  relief  ?"    And  still 
another  talented  minister,  W.  C.  Gage,  writes  me:  ''Our 
ministers,  and  people  as  well,  are  growing  to  be  a  denomi- 
nation of  hypocrites,  by  a  slavish  fear  of  expressing  an  hon- 
est belief.  *  *  I  am  sick  and  disheartened.    *  *  The  basis  of 
confidence  is  gone,  and  I  shall  only  await  the  outcome  of 
the  matter."     Still  another,  Uriah  Smith,  writes:  "There  is 
a  fear,  on  the  part  of  the  powers  that  be,  of  free  thought  and 
free  discussion.     So  far  as  this  is  the  case,  it  is  a  shame  and 
disgrace  to  us."    And  yet  these  brethren  patch  up  the 
matter  some  way,  and  go  right  on  as  though  nothing  were 
wrong.     I  know  how  to  pity  them,  for  I  myself  have  passed 
through  precisely  the  same  experience.    And  another  writes: 
"  I  wish  I  had  never  heard  the  Advent  doctrine  preached. 
Previous  to  that,  I  know  that  I  did  enjoy  the  blessing  of 
God.     I  was  not  troubled  about  doctrine.  *  *  1  think  I  then 
had  some  influence  for  good  over  others,  but  I  fear  my 
change  of  faith  had  a  bad  influence  over  my  children." 
Strange  to  say,  these  are  the  very  men  who  now  denounce 
me  the  worst  because  I  had  the  courage  of  my  convictions, 
while  they  haven't. 

These  are  fair  samples  of  how  scores  among  them  feel, 
from  men  in  leading  positions,  to  the  humblest  in  the  church. 
Largely  they  keep  it  to  themselves,  but  occasionally  it  will 


ADVENTISM  A  YOKE  OF  BONDAGE.  6i 

out.  Many  of  them  almost  get  out,  and  then  fall  back,  to 
linger  along  in  bondage  all  the  rest  of  their  lives.  ''But  it 
these  persons  are  in  such  bondage,  why  not  break  loose,  and 
be  free  ?  Who  would  harm  them  ?"  Be  it  remembered  that 
there  is  a  bondage  worse  than  African  slavery — the  bondage 
of  religious  tyranny  and  superstition.  I  was  held  there  for 
years,  and  know  its  powder. 

Milton  F.  Gow^ell,  Chicago,  gives  so  true  a  picture  of 
Advent  experience,  that  I  quote  him  in  a  letter  to  me.  1 
was  often  at  his  father's  house,  in  Portland,  Me. ,  when  he 
was  a  boy.  He  says:  "My  recollections  of  those  days  are 
full  of  the  terrors  of  law,  prophetic  charts,  Mrs.  White's 
visions,  the  Sabbath,  Sabbath,  Sabbath,  health  reform, 
bloomer  dresses,  and  a  gi'eat  zeal  for  being  industrious  on 
Sunday,  and  little  or  nothing  of  Christ.  All  the  doing  was 
indelibly  impressed  on  my  mind  as  a  boy,  but  the  believing 
on  Christ  for  salvation,  and  resting  in  his  finished  work,  I 
have  no  remembrance  of  whatever.  How  many  there  are 
that  join  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists  utterly  unsaved, 
knowing  nothing  of  the  grace  of  God,  hearing  always  barely 
the  law.  I  joined  them  at  the  age  of  fourteen,  under  con- 
viction, guilty  before  God,  but  unsaved,  though  I  was  bap- 
tized and  received  into  the  church  as  a  Sahbath  keeper.  I 
received  no  peace,  no  rest,  till  I  entered  into  rest  by  believ- 
ing about  three  and  a  half  years  ago;  saved  from  the  border- 
land of  infidelity."  This  is  just  the  impression  which  all 
the  children  of  that  people  are  receiving — cold  legalism. 
While  this  young  man  was  finally  saved  from  infidelity, 
hundreds  of  them  are  not,  as  I  well  know. 

PROMINENT  PERSONS   WHO  HAVE   LEFT  THE   ADVENTISTS. 

It  is  nothing  new  for  men  to  leave  a  party,  good  or  bad; 
but  so  large  a  number  of  prominent  persons  have  left  the 
Adventists  as  to  excite  surprise.     It  is  clear  that  there  must 


62        SEYENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

be  something  wrong  in  the  system  itself.  First,  according 
to  the  best  of  my  judgment,  from  one- third  to  one-half  of 
all  who  begin  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  sooner  or  later 
abandon  it. 

At  diflerent  times  large  numbers  have  left  them,  mostly 
on  account  of  Mrs.  White's  visions.  We  will  name  a  few 
of  the  ministers  who  have  departed  from  them:  J.  B  Cook 
and  T.  M.  Preble,  the  pioneers  who  started  the  movement, 
both  renounced  it;  O.  K.  L.  Crozier,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich., 
has  renounced  the  Sabbath;  Elder  B.  F.  Snook,  the  leading 
man  in  Iowa,  is  now  a  Universalist;  Elder  W.  H.  Brinker- 
hoof,  of  Iowa,  has  renounced  the  faith;  Elder  Moses  Hull, 
the  ablest  speaker  they  ever  had,  is  now  a  Spiritualist,  and 
Elder  Shortridge,  a  minister  of  much  talent,  has  also  gone 
the  same  way;  Elders  Hall  and  Stephenson,  at  the  time 
very  prominent  in  the  work,  went  to  the  Age-to-Come  party; 
C.  B.  Raynolds,  of  New  York,  has  become  a  noted  bias- 
phemer;  Elder  H.  C.  Blanchard,  Avilla,  Mo.,  renounced 
the  doctrine;  ditto  T.  J.  Butler,  of  the  same  State;  Elder  L. 
L.  Howard,  Maine,  H.  F.  Haynes,  New  Hampshire,  left 
them;  Nathan  Fuller,  Wellsville,  N.  Y.,  became  a  libertine; 
M.  B.  Czechowski  went  to  Europe  and  died  in  disgrace;  H. 
F.  Case,  Elder  Cranmer  and  Philip  Strong,  all  of  Michigan, 
left  them. 

Elder  J.  B.  Frisbie,  their  pioneer  and  most  eflScient 
preacher  for  years  in  Michigan,  finally  left  them.  Dr.  Lee, 
of  Minnesota,  who  inaugurated  the  work  among  the  Swedes, 
now  opposes  them.  Elder  A.  B.  Oyen,  missionary  to  Eu- 
rope, and  editor  of  their  Danish  paper,  has  renounced  the 
faith.  Living  right  at  the  head  of  the  work  for  many  years, 
he  had  the  best  of  opportunity  to  know  all  about  its  work- 
ings. Elder  D.  B.  Oviatt,  for  many  years  president  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Conference,  renounced  the  faith,  and  is  now  a 
Baptist  minister. 


ADVENTISM  A  YOKE  OF  BONDAGE.  63 

So  Elder  Rosquist  and  Elder  Whitelaw,  both  of  Minne- 
sota, have  recently  left  them  and  gone  to  the  Baptists. 
Other  ministers  of  the  West  have  also'  gone  over  to  the 
Baptists.  C.  A.  Russell,  Otsego,  Mich.,  an  excellent  man, 
once  preached  that  doctrine  with  me,  but  is  now  a  Metho- 
dist. H.  E.  Carver,  H.  C.  Blanchard,  J.  W.  Cassady,  A.  C. 
Long,  Jacob  Brinkerhoof,  J.  C.  Day,  H.  W.  Ball,  Good- 
enough,  Bunch,  and  others,  once  members  of  that  church, 
have  written  against  it.  Elder  Hiram  Edson  and  Elder  S. 
W.  Rhodes,  noted  pioneers  in  the  work,  died  confirmed 
cranks,  and  a  trial  to  the  church.  The  sad  example  of  sev- 
eral of  their  leading  ministers  who  have  been  guilty  of 
adultery,  proves  that  their  church  has  nothing  to  boast  of 
over  other  churches  in  the  puritv  of  its  ministers  and  mem- 
bers. 

THEIR  COLLEGE   PROFESSORS. 

They  have  been  very  unfortunate  in  their  college  profes- 
sors. Professor  S.  S.  Brownsburger,  the  first  Principal  of 
their  College  at  Battle  Creek,  Mich. ,  which  position  he  occu- 
pied for  years,  and  then  filled  the  same  position  in  their 
college  in  Cahfornia,  is  now  wholly  disconnected  from  the 
work.  Elder  W.  H.  Littlejohn,  who  next  stood  at  the  head 
of  the  college,  was  expelled  from  the  church  and  fell  into 
doubts.  Next  came  Professor  A.  McLearn  as  head  of  the 
college.  He  has  renounced  the  faith,  and  now  opposes  them 
strongly.  Professor  Vesey,  a  learned  teacher  in  that  col- 
lege, has  forsaken  the  faith.  Professor  C.  C.  Ramsy,  born 
in  that  faith,  was  professor  of  mathematics  in  the  Battle 
Creek  college  for  three  years;  then  filled  the  same  place  for 
three  years  in  their  college  in  California;  then  was  called  to 
take  charge  of  their  academy  in  the  East,  which  he  did  for 
three  years  more.  He  was  editor  of  their  educational  jour- 
nal,  prominent  in  Sabbath  School  work,  and  many  other 
ways.     He  has  renounced  that  faith,  but  remains  an  earnest 


64  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Christian.  Others  of  their  teachers  of  lesser  note  have  also 
left  them.  What  is  the  cause  of  such  results  ?  There  must 
be  something  wrong. 

THEIR  PHYSICIANS. 

They  have  been  equally  unfortunate  with  their  physicians 
in  their  sanitarium  at  Battle  Creek.  Dr.  H.  S.  Ley,  an 
excellent  man,  was  the  first  physician-in-chief.  He  left  the 
institution  in  a  trial,  and  was  out  of  the  work  for  years. 
Dr.  Wm.  Russell,  a  talented  doctor,  came  next.  What  he 
there  saw  of  Adventism  made  him  an  infidel,  and  he  was 
dismissed.  Next,  I  believe,  came  Dr.  M.  G.  Kellogg.  The 
treatment  he  received  drove  him  into  scepticism  for  years. 
Then  came  Dr.  Sprague  and  Dr.  Farfield,  both  of  whom 
renounced  the  faith,  and,  I  believe,  are  sceptical  now.  Mrs. 
Lamson  and  Miss  Fellows,  both  matrons  of  the  sanitarium, 
lost  faith  in  the  doctrine.  Dr.  Smith,  brought  up  in  the 
faith,  renounced  it.  Here  again  we  see  that  education  unfits 
men  for  Adventism.  I  am  not  acquainted  witK  another 
church  which  has  lost  so  large  a  proportion  of  its  most 
prominent  men.  Every  year,  nearly,  so  far,  more  or  less 
have  gone  away  from  them,  till  they  have  lost  more  talent 
than  now  remains  with  them. 

IT  LEADS  TO  INFIDELITY. 

A  strong  argument  with  Adventists  is,  that  most  of  those 
who  leave  them  become  infidels,  as  all  know.  But,  after 
long  watching,  I  became  satisfied  that  it  is  Adventism  which 
has  made  them  infidels.  Look  at  Romanism.  Wherever  it  has 
had  sway  a  while,  it  filled  the  land  with  infidels.  Go  among 
the  Mormons  at  Salt  Lake.  Large  numbers  of  their  chil- 
dren are  becoming  infidels.  The  natural  rebound  from  fanat- 
icism and  superstition  is  into  infidelity  and  scepticism. 
Right  here  in  Otsego  we  have  several  infidels,  the  grown-up 


ADVENTISM  A  YOKE  OF  BONDAGE.  65 

children  of  Adventists.  I  know  them  and  meet  them  all 
over  the  country,  and  their  numbers  are  increasing.  I  feei 
sure  that  the  ripe  fruit  of  Adventism  in  the  years  to  come 
will  be  a  generation  of  doubters. 

THEIR   CHURCH   BACKSLIDING, 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  claim  to  be  raised  up  of  God,  to 
reform  the  church  of  to-day.  They  claim  to  be  purer,  more 
spiritual,  and  on  a  higher  plane  than  other  Christians.  All 
other  churches  are  Babylon  and  apostates,  while  they  are 
the  chosen  saints.  But  now,  after  their  church  has  had 
only  fifty  years  trial,  and  hence  is  still  small  and  young,  and 
so  ought  to  be  better  than  older  and  larger  churches,  I  can 
quote  confessions  from  their  own  writers,  proving  that  they 
are  as  worldly,  backslidden  and  corrupt  as  they  make  out 
other  churches  to  be.     I  will  give  a  few. 

Elder  G.  I.  Butler,  in  the  Advent  Review^  May  10, 1887, 
says:  "A  terrible  stupor  like  that  which  enveloped  the  dis 
ciples  in  the  Saviour's  agony  in  the  garden,  seems  to  hang 
over  the  mass  of  our  people."  Mrs.  White,  in  Testimonies, 
Vol.  I,  says:  "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  has  been  dying  away 
from  the  church,"  page  113;  "The  churches  have  nearly  lost 
their  spirituality  and  faith,"  page  119;  "I  saw  the  dreadful 
fact  that  God's  people  were  conformed  to  the  world  with  no 
distinction,  except  in  name,"  page  133;  "Covetousness, 
selfishness,  love  of  money,  and  love  of  the  world,  are  all 
through  the  ranks  of  Sabbath-keepers,"  page  140;  ^^ Vital 
godliness  is  lacking,"  page  153;  "There  is  but  little  love  for 
one  another.  A  selfish  spirit  is  manifest.  Discourage- 
ment has  come  upon  the  church,"  page  166;  "Spirituality 
and  devotion  are  rare,"  page  469.  Many  of  them  are  not 
even  honest.  She  says:  "As  I  saw  the  spirit  of  defrauding, 
of  over-reaching,  of  meanness,  even  among  some  professed 
Sabbath-keepers,  I  cried  out  in  anguish,"  page  480;  ''There 


66        SEVENTH-DAT  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

is  but  little  praying.  In  fact,  prayer  is  almost  obsolete," 
page  56G;  "Not  one  in  twenty  of  those  who  have  a  good 
standing  with  Seventh-Day  Adventists,  is  living  out  the 
self-sacrificing  principles  of  the  word  of  God,"  page  632. 
Of-  the  Battle  Creek  church  she  says:  "I  can  select  family 
after  family  of  children  in  this  house,  every  one  of  whom  is 
as  corrupt  as  hell  itself . "  * 'Right  here  in  this  church  cor- 
ruption is  teeming  on  every  hand,"  Vol.  II,  pages  360,  361; 
"Sin  and  vice  exist  in  Sabbath-keeping  families,"  page  391; 
"We  have  a  dwarfed  and  defective  ministry,"  Vol.  IV,  page 
Ml.  In  Testimony,  No.  33,  just  published,  Mrs.  White 
says:  "There  is  a  deplorable  lack  of  spirituality  among  our 
people.  *  *  There  has  been  a  spirit  of  self-sufficiency, 
and  a  disposition  to  strive  for  position  and  supremacy.  I 
have  seen  that  self-glorification  was  becoming  common 
among  Seventh-Day  Adventists,"  pages  255,  256.  Thus  as 
they  grow  older,  they  have  to  confess  to  all  the  weaknesses, 
and  short-comings  which  they  have  so  eagerly  charged 
against  other  churches. 

I  could  quote  whole  pages  of  such  confessions  as  these 
from  Mrs.  White  and  their  leading  men.  They  are  comv 
pelled  to  say  it.  It  is  common  in  their  camp-meetings  to 
see  half  their  members  forward  as  backsliders.  Their 
preaching  is  largely  scolding  their  members  for  their  cold- 
ness. In  fact,  the  thing  is  a  practical  failure  in  whatever 
way  you  look  at  it.  Are  they  any  better,  any  more 
spiritual,  than  the  regular  churches  which  they  denounce 
so  ?  No,  as  the  above  shows.  After  being  well  acquainted 
with  both,  I  say  confidently  that  there  is  as  much  devotion 
and  spirituality  among  the  Evangelical  churches  as  among 
Adventists. 

If,  then,  these  things  in  the  other  churches  prove  that 

they  are  Babylon,  they  prove  the  same  of  the  Advent 

church,  too.* 

*  See  Appendix  A. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ORIGIN,  HISTORY  AND  FAILURES  OF  ADVENTISM. 

Every  little  while^  from  the  days  of  Christ  till  now,  in- 
aividuals,  and  often  large  sects,  have  arisen,  proclaiming 
tne  Second  Advent  at  hand  and  themselves  the  God-appointed 
messengers  to  warn  the  world.  Right  on  this  point  Jesus 
warned  his  church:  *'Take  heed  that  no  man  deceive  you. 
*^  *  *  The  end  is  not  yet."  Matt.  24:  4-6.  Yet  right 
away  it  was  said  that  Jesus  would  come  before  John  should 
die.  John  21:  23.  The  Thessalonians  had  to  be  corrected 
by  Paul  for  expecting  the  Advent  immediately  at  hand. 
a.  Thess.  2:  1-8. 

In  the  middle  of  the  second  century  arose  the  Montanists. 
The  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  says:  ''Ecstatic  visions 
announcing  the  approach  of  the  Second  Advent  of  Christ 
*  *  *  were  set  forth  as  divine  revelations."  Art.  Mon- 
tanism.  Like  Seventh-Day  Adventists,  they  adopted  a 
severe  discipline — condemned  the  wearing  of  ornaments,  in- 
tercourse with  the  world,  etc.  They  created  a  great  sensa- 
tion, obtained  a  numerous  following,  and  flourished  for  a 
century  or  more, 

TENTH  CENTURY  ADVENTISM. 

The  following  is  from  the  "History  of  the  Christian 
Church,"  by  M.  Renter,  D.D.,  Century  10,  Chapter  2, 
pages  202,  203:  "Among  the  numerous  opinions,  how- 
ever, which  disgraced  the  Latin  church  and  produced  from 
time  to  time  such  violent  agitations,  none  occasioned  such 
laiiversal    panic,  nor  such  dreadful  impressions  of  terror 

(6T) 


68  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

or  dismay,  as  a  notion  that  prevailed  during  this  [tenth] 
century  of  the  immediate  approach  of  the  day  of  judg- 
ment." * 'Public  and  private  buildings  were  suffered  to 
decay,  and  were  even  pulled  down,  from  an  opinion  that 
they  were  no  longer  of  any  use,  since  the  dissolution  of  all 
things  was  at  hand." 

The  Fifth-Monarchy  men  of  England,  about  1660,  "be- 
lieved that  the  time  was  near  at  hand  when,  to  the  four 
great  monarchies  of  Daniel's  prophetic  vision,  was  to  suc- 
ceed the  fifth,  which  was  to  break  in  pieces  all  others,  and 
to  '  stand  forever.' "  Johnson's  Encyclopedia,  article  Fifth- 
Monarchy  Men.  They  undertook  to  set  up  the  kingdom  by 
overturning  the  English  government. 

The  Irvingites  of  England  '  'declare  the  speedy  coming  of 
Christ;"  have  "prophets,"  "revelations,"  "tongues,"  "gifts," 
etc.  They  have  gathered  large  congregations  and  are 
spreading  over  the  world. 

Swedenborg,  A.nn  Lee,  Joanna  Southcott,  Joe  Smith,  etc. , 
all  made  the  speedy  advent  of  Christ  the  ground-work  of 
their  systems,  as  is  well  known.  Hence,  movements  of  this 
kind  are  nothing  new. 

Seventh-Day  Adventism  originated  in  the  well  known 
niovement  of  William  Miller,  who  set  the  time  for  the  end 
of  the  world  in  1843-4.  They  claim  now  that  Mr.  Miller's 
move  was  right,  and  in  the  providence  of  God.  They  claim 
to  be  simply  carrying  on  the  same  work  which  he  began. 
In  all  their  books  and  sermons  they  point  to  1844  as  their 
origin,  and  endorse  the  work  of  the  Millerites  in  1843  and 
1844.     The  following  from  Mrs.  White  will  settle  the  point: 

"I  have  seen  that  the  1843  chart  was  directed  by  the 
hand  of  the  Lord,  and  that  it  should  not  be  altered;  that  the 
figures  were  as  he  wanted  them;  that  his  hand  was  over  and 
hid  a  mistake  in  some  of  the  figures."  Early  Writings,  page 
64.    God  helped  them  make  the  mistake !    "I  saw  that  God 


OBIGIK,    HIBTORT  AND  FAILURES   OF  ADVENTISM.         69 

was  in  the  proclamation  of  the  time  in  1 843. "  Spiritual  Gifts, 
Vol.  I.,  page  133.  So  God  wanted  them  to  set  that  time  I 
"  I  saw  that  they  were  correct  in  their  reckoning  of  the  pro- 
phetic periods;  prophetic  time  closed  in  1844."  Page  107. 
Again:  "The  Advent  movement  of  1840-44  was  a  glorious 
manifestation  of  the  power  of  God."  Great  Controversy, 
Vol.  IV.,  page  429.  Elder  White  says:  "  We  hold  that  the 
great  movement  upon  the  Second  Advent  question,  which 
commenced  with  the  writings  and  public  lectures  of  William 
Miller,  has  been,  in  its  leading  features,  in  fulfillment  of 
prophecy.  Consistently  with  this  view,  we  also  hold  that 
in  the  providence  of  God,  Mr.  Miller  was  raised  up  to  do  a 
specific  work."  Life  of  Miller,  page  6.  So  it  will  be  seen 
that  Seventh-Day  Adventists  still  believe  in  and  defend  the 
Millerite  movements  of  1843  and  1844.  Indeed,  they  claim 
that  all  other  churches  who  did  not  accept  and  endorse  Mil- 
ler's work  were  rejected  of  God  on  this  account.  Thus  Mrs. 
White:  "As  the  churches  refused  to  receive  the  first  angel's 
message  [Miller's  work],  they  rejected  the  light  from  heaven 
and  fell  from  the  favor  of  God."    Early  Writings,  page  101. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  origin  of  Seventh-Day  Advent- 
ism,  the  fountain  from  which  it  flowed.  As  a  stream  will 
be  like  its  fountain,  let  us  examine  it.  Elder  and  Mrs. 
White,  Elders  Bates,  Andrews,  Rhodes,  Holt,  Edson,  and 
all  the  founders  of  the  Seventh-Day  Adventist  Church  were 
in  the  movement  of  Miller,  and  helped  in  setting  and  preach- 
ing the  time  in  1843,  1844,  and  carried  the  Advent  work 
right  on  afterwards. 

The  work  of  Mr.  Miller  is  so  well  known,  that  I  need  but 
refer  to  the  facts  about  it.  William  Miller  was  bom  at 
Pittsfield,  Mass. ,  1782,  but  he  was  reared  at  Low  Hampton, 
N.  Y.  He  was  a  farmer,  with  only  the  poor  advantages  of  a 
country  school  He  united  with  the  Baptist  church.  About 
1831  he  claimed  that  he  had  discovered  by  the  propheciei 


70  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

the  exact  time,  the  very  year,  and,  finally,  the  very  day 
when  Christ  would  appear  and  the  end  of  the  world 
would  come.  He  succeeded  in  converting  perhaps  fifty 
thousand  people  to  his  views.  The  first  date  fixed 
was  1843.  It  failed.  Then  he  fixed  a  day  in  October, 
1844,  and  that  failed.  Many  other  times  have  since 
been  fixed  by  Mr.  Miller's  followers,  and  all  have  failed. 
Over  fifty  years  have  come  and  gone,  and  the  end  has  not 
come  yet. 

What  was  the  one  great  burden  of  Miller,  the  one  point 
on  which  he  difiered  from  the  Evangelical  churches  ?  All 
these  churches  believed  in  the  personal  Second  Advent  of 
Christ  just  as  strongly  as  Miller  did.  They  loved  Jesus  and 
preached  the  Second  Advent,  even  teaching  that  it  was  near 
at  hand.  But  the  Millerites  said  they  knew  the  timie  when 
it  was  to  be,  and  that  time  was  1843-4.  They  staked  all 
upon  this.  The  issue  was  plain  and  definite.  All  who  did 
not  endorse  their  set  time  were  "opposers,"  "enemies,"  "in 
the  dark,"  "evil  servants,"  rejected  of  God  and  lost,  just 
because  they  would  not  believe  in  setting  a  time  for  the  end. 
Here  are  Miller's  words:  "I  believe  the  time  can  be  known 
by  all  who  desire  to  understand.  *  *  *  Between  March 
21,  1840,  and  March  21,  1844,  according  to  the  Jewish 
mode  of  computation  of  time,  Christ  will  come."  Life  of 
Miller,  page  172.  Jesus  says:  "Ye  know  not  when  the 
time  is."  Mark  13:  33.  But  the  Millerites  thought  they 
knew  better  than  Jesus  Christ  did.  So  they  condemned  all 
who  did  not  agree  with  them.  Here  is  a  mild  sample  of 
what  they  said  and  the  spirit  that  possessed  them:  "  This  is 
God's  truth;  it  is  as  true  as  the  Bible."  "  There  is  no  pos- 
sibility of  a  mistake  in  this  time."  "Those  who  reject  this 
light  will  be  lost."  "Those  who  do  not  accept  this  argu- 
ment  are  backsliders,"  etc.  History  of  Advent  Message, 
page  596.     And  this  is  the  spirit  that  has  followed  then; 


ORIGIN,    HISTORY  AND   FAILURES  OF  ADVENTISM.         71 

ever  since — a  harsh,  denunciatory  spirit  against  all  who  did 
not  agree  with  their  figures,  interpretations  and  theories. 
•  But  their  set  times  came  and  passed  without  the  least 
regard  to  their  figures  and  facts,  proofs  and  demonstrations, 
prayers  and  predictions.  Remorseless  old  Time,  the  true 
tester  of  every  theory,  marched  right  on  and  demolished 
them  all.  This  demonstrated  the  folly  and  error  of  the 
Adventists.  Miller's  prediction  was  a  wretched  abortion. 
He  preached  and  propagated  a  falsehood.  All  his  work 
wherein  he  diflered  from  evangelical  churches  was  a  false- 
hood. He  preached  that  the  world  would  end  in  1843,  and 
it  didn't.  He  set  1844  for  it  to  come,  and  it  didn't.  If 
ever  a  religious  movement  on  earth  was  demonstrated  to  be 
a  humbug  and  a  failure,  it  was  Millerism.  But  if  Millerism 
was  a  failure,  then  Seventh-Day  Adventism  is  also,  for  that 
was  the  fountain  from  which  this  has  flowed;  that  was  the 
foundation  on  which  this  is  built.  Deut.  18:  22:  '*When  a 
prophet  speaketh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  if  the  thing  fol- 
/ow  not,  nor  come  to  pass,  that  is  the  thing  which  the  Lord 
hath  not  spoken."  This,  surely,  is  a  simple  and  fair  test. 
By  this  rule  the  Lord  was  not  in  Miller's  move. 

"  But  were  not  the  Adventists  in  1843-4  very  confident 
that  they  were  right  ?"  Confident  is  no  name  for  it.  They 
were  sure  that  they  were  right,  they  knew  they  were  right,  for 
they  proved  it  all  by  the  Bible,  every  word  of  it,  positively. 
The  Bible  said  so;  to  deny  it  was  to  deny  the  Bible.  But  it 
failed  all  the  same.  It  is  just  so  with  Seventh-Day  Advent- 
ists now.  They  are  the  most  positive  people  in  the  world, 
though  they  have  made  scores  of  terrible  blunders. 

That  no  one  will  know  the  time  of  the  second  advent  is  as 
plainly  taught  as  words  can  teach.  Read  the  following: 
"  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the 
angels  of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only;"  ''Watch,  therefore: 
for  ye  know  not  what  hour  your  Lord  doth  come;"  ''There* 


72  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

fore  be  ye  also  ready:  for  in  such  an  hour  as  ye  think  not 
the  Son  of  man  cometh;"  "Watch  therefore,  for  ye  know 
neither  the  day  nor  the  hour  wherein  the  Son  of  man  com- 
eth."  Matt.  24:  36,  42,  44;  25: 13.  *'  Take  ye  heed,  watch 
and  pray:  for  ye  know  not  when  the  time  is."  Mark  13: 
33.  "It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons, 
which  the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own  power."  Acts  1:  7. 
Jesus  said,  "Ye  know  not  when  the  time  is;"  Miller  said, 
' '  We  know  when  the  time  is. "  Jesus  said,  "It  is  not  for 
you  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons;"  Miller  said,  "  We 
know  all  about  them."  Jesus  said,  "No  man  knows  the 
day;"  Miller  said,  "We  know  the  exact  day."  Which  was 
right?  The  disappointments  of  the  Adventists,  time  and 
again,  during  the  past  fifty  years,  in  setting  the  date  for  the 
end  of  the  world  have  clearly  demonstrated  their  folly.  The 
whole  Advent  move  was  conceived  in  error,  born  in  a  mis- 
take, has  grown  up  in  folly,  and  must  die  in  disgrace.  "But 
were  not  the  Millerites  honest?"  There  is  no  doubt  of  it, 
but  that  proves  nothing  as  to  their  correctness. 

THE  FRUIT  OF  MILLERISM. 

*'By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  Millerism,  for 
about  four  years,  in  a  few  states,  created  a  great  excitement. 
Churches  were  divided  and  broken  up,  pastors  left  their 
flocks  to  "lecture"  on  "time,"  while  argument  and  strife 
were  the  order  of  the  day.  As  the  time  set  drew  near,  in 
thousands  of  cases,  the  Adventists  not  only  left  their  work 
and  their  business,  but  gave  away  their  property.  Crops 
were  left  ungathered,  goods  were  distributed  freely,  so  that 
many  who  had  been  well  to  do  were  left  penniless.  After 
the  time  had  passed,  these  were  destitute  and  their  families 
suffered.  Many  had  to  be  arrested  and  put  under  guardi- 
ans, to  protect  their  families.  Then  the  wildest  fanaticism 
broke  out  here  and  there,  which  brought  disgrace  upon  the 


ORIGIN,    HISTORY  AND  TAILURES  OF  ADVENTI8M.         73 

very  name  of  religion.  Many  said  the  Lord  had  come,  pro- 
bation was  ended,  it  was  sin  to  work,  all  property  must  be 
held  in  common,  all  the  churches  were  apostate,  Babylon, 
etc.  Some  Adventists  had  spiritual  wives,  some  went  to 
the  Shakers,  many  went  back  into  the  churches,  some  into 
despair,  and  hundreds  into  doubt  and  infidelity — just  what 
might  have  been  expected.  The  glorious  doctrine  of  the 
§econd  Advent  was  covered  with  shame,  Satan  rejoiced, 
while  the  cause  of  Christ  was  greatly  injured.  For  proof  of 
these  facts,  I  refer  to  the  testimony  of  thousands  now  living, 
and  to  the  published  works  of  the  Adventists  themselves. 
Thus  Elder  U.  Smith  is  compelled  to  say:  ''  The  Advent  body 
were  a  unit  [in  1844]  and  their  testimony  shook  the  world. 
Suddenly  their  power  was  broken,  their  strength  scattered, 
their  ranks  divided,  and  their  testimony  paralyzed.  They 
passed  the  point  of  their  expectation,  and  realized  not  their 
hope.  That  a  mistake  had  been  made  somewhere,  none 
could  deny.  From  that  point  the  history  of  a  majority  of 
that  once  happy,  united  people  has  been  marked  by  discord, 
division,  confusion,  speculation,  new  mistakes,  fresh  disap- 
pointments, disintegration  and  apostasy."  The  Sanctuary, 
pages  13,  14. 

Paul  said,  "God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion."  I.  Cor. 
14:  33.  Then  surely  he  was  not  the  author  of  Adventism, 
for  the  confusion  it  produced  is  unparalleled  in  religious 
history.  Ten  souls  were  ruined  by  it  where  one  was  saved. 
Immediately  after  1844  they  split  up  into  numerous  parties, 
each  contradicting  and  condemning  all  the  rest.  Instead 
of  renouncing  the  whole  tiding,  as  sane  men  ought  to  have 
done,  each  ^one  set  himself  to  find  some  "explanation"  of 
their  mistake.  Hardly  any  two  agreed,  while  each  one 
was  sure  he  had  the  true  explanation.  Their  utter  con 
fusion  is  well  illustrated  by  the  following  anecdote  told  by 
Mr.  Miller  himself:     The  first  person  in  his  own  parish  who 


74        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

fully  embraced  his  views  was  an  old  woman,  an  humble 
Christian.  Mr.  Miller  sent  her  his  papers  when  he  had  read 
them.  One  week  he  received  sixteen  difierent  sheets,  all 
purporting  to  be  Advent  publications,  but  the  most  of  them 
advocating  contradictory  sentiments.  He  sent  them  to  the 
old  woman.     Soon  she  sent  for  him,  and  on  his  arrival  began: 

'^Have  you  read  all  these  papers? " 

*^I  have  looked  them  over." 

*'  But  are  they  all  Advent  papers  ? " 

*'  They  profess  to  be." 

''Well,  then,"  said  she,  '^I  am  no  longer  an  Adventist. 
I  shall  take  the  old  Bible  and  stick  to  that." 

"But,"  said  Mr.  Miller,  "we  have  no  confidence  in  one- 
half  there  is  advocated  in  these  papers. " 

"  We  ?  "  exclaimed  the  old  lady,  "  who  is  we  .^" 

"  Why,"  replied  Mr.  Miller,  "  w^  are  those  who  do  not 
fellowship  these  things. " 

* '  Well,  but  I  want  to  know  who  we  is. " 

"  Why,  all  of  us  who  stand  on  the  old  ground." 

"  But  that  ain't  telling  me  who  we  is.  I  want  to  know 
who  we  is." 

"Well,"  said  Mr.  Miller,  in  relating  the  story,  "I  was 
confounded,  and  was  unable  to  give  her  any  information 
who  we  were."  History  of  Second  Advent  Message,  pages 
414,  415. 

And  so  it  has  continued  unto  this  day.  What  do  Ad- 
ventists  believe  ?  Go  ask  what  language  was  spoken  by  the 
people  after  the  Lord  confused  their  tongues  at  Babel.  Ad- 
ventism  is  a  second  Babel.  But  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
say,  "We  are  united;  we  believe  alike."  Partly  true,  but 
they  are  only  one  branch  of  this  Advent  Babel.  Such  a 
brood  of  errors  and  heresies  as  has  resulted  from  Adventism, 
cannot  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  church  before.  Time- 
setting,  visions,  miracles,  fanatics,  false  prophets,  sleep  of 


ORIGIN,   HISTORY  AND  FAILURES  OF  ADVENTISM.       75 

the  dead,  annihilation  of  the  wicked,  non -resurrection  of 
the  wicked,  future  probation,  restoration,  community  of 
goods,  denial  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  no  devil,  no  baptism, 
no  organization,  etc.,  etc.  Gracious !  And  these  are  the 
people  sent  with  a  "  message  "  to  warn  the  church !  They 
had  better  go  back  and  learn  and  agree  on  what  their 
"  message  "  is,  before  they  run  to  deliver  it. 

The  other  Adventists  have  set  the  time  for  the  end  of 
the  world  in  1843,  1844,  1847,  1850,  1852,  1854,  1855, 
1863,  1866,  1867,  1868,  1877,  and  so  on,  till  one  is  sick  of 
counting.  Learning  nothing  from  the  past,  each  time 
they  are  quite  as  confident  as  before. 

This  fanatical  work  has  brought  disgrace  upon  the  doctrine 
of  the  Second  Advent,  so  that  it  is  not  dwelt  upon  as  much 
as  formerly  in  other  churches.  The  study  of  the  prophecies 
has  been  brought  into  disrepute  by  the  unwise  course  of  the 
Adventists.     No  thoughtful  man  can  fail  to  see  this. 

SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISTS   AND   TIIVIE-SETTING. 

It  is  the  one  constant  boast  of  the  Seventh-Day  Adventista 
that  they  never  set  time;  they  don't  believe  in  it.  But  they 
deceive  themselves  and  deceive  others  when  they  say  so. 
Elder  White,  their  leader,  engaged  in  preaching  three  dif- 
ferent set  times  for  the  Lord  to  come,  viz.,  1843,  1844,  1845. 
Here  are  his  own  statements  on  this  :  "I  found  myself  happy 
in  the  faith  that  Christ  would  come  about  the  year  1843." 
Life  Incidents,  page  72.  Then  he  tells  how  he  preached  it. 
Of  1844,  he  says:  "I  stated  my  conviction  that  Christ 
would  come  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  Jewish  month 
of  that  year  [1844]."  Pages  166,  167.  "It  is  well  known 
that  many  were  expecting  the  Lord  to  come  at  the  seventh 
month,  1845.  That  Christ  would  then  come  we  firmly  be- 
lieved. A  few  days  before  the  time  passed,  I  was  at  Fair- 
haven  and  Dartmouth^  Mass. ,  with  a  message  on  this  point 


76        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

of  time."  ''A  Word  to  the  Little  Flock,"  by  James  White, 
page  22.  So  their  leader  was  a  time-setter.  Mrs.  White, 
their  prophetess,  was  in  the  time-setting  of  1843  and  1844. 
She  herself  says:  ''We  were  firm  in  the  belief  that  the 
preaching  of  definite  time  was  of  God. "  Testimonies,  Vol.  I, 
page  56.  Of  the  first  date  she  says:  "With  carefulness  and 
trembling  we  approached  the  time  when  our  Saviour  was 
expected  to  appear."  Then  she  tells  her  disappointment. 
Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  page  48.  Again:  "Our  hopes  now 
centered  on  the  coming  of  the  Lord  in  1844."  Page  53. 
She  was  a  time-setter.  Elders  Bates,  Andrews,  Rhodes, 
and  all  the  first  crop  of  Seventh-Day  Adventists  were  in  the 
time-setting  of  1843,  1844.  They  still  endorse  Miller's 
time-setting  of  1843  and  1844  as  right  and  approved  of  God. 
How  much  truth,  then,  is  there  in  their  assertions  that  they 
have  never  set  time  ?  But  they  say,  ' '  We  did  not  keep  the 
Seventh-Day  when  we  set  time;  therefore  ive  never  set  time! " 
That  is  too  thin.  The  thief  says,  ''/did  not  wear  this  coat 
when  /stole  the  sheep,  therefore  /never stole  him!  "  They 
say  that  they  have  given  the  three  messages.  Well,  the 
first  message  was  in  1844  when  they  set  time.  Are  they 
the  same  people,  or  are  they  not  ? 

Again  they  endorse  Mr.  Miller's  work  as  of  God.  But 
Miller  is  responsible  for  all  the  time-setting  done  by  the 
Adventists  since  his  time,  because  they  are  the  legitimate 
outgrowth  of  his  work.  He  began  setting  time.  He  did  it 
the  second  time.  He  taught  them  how  to  do  it.  He  fathered 
the  idea.  He  inculcated  it  in  all  his  followers.  They  then 
simply  took  up  and  carried  on  what  he  had  begun.  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  claim  to  be  the  original  Adventists,  and  en- 
dorse  Miller's  work.  In  doing  this  they  endorse  time-setting, 
and  should  justly  bear  all  the  odium  of  that  fanatical  busi- 
ness. 

But  don't  Seventh-Day  Adventists  rise  to  explain  why 


ORIOm,    HISTORY  AKD  FAILURES  OF  ADVENTISM.         77 


they  were  disappointed  in  1843,  and  again  in  1844,  and 
for  forty  years  since?  O,  yes;  but  we  naturally  become  a 
little  suspicious  of  the  man  who  is  compelled  to  be  con- 
stantly explaining  his  conduct.  Straight  work  needs  no 
explanation.  They  say  the  Lord  caused  them  to  be  disap- 
pointed in  1843,  on  purpose  to  test  their  faith,  that  was  all ! 
In  1844  they  made  just  one  little  mistake,  that  was  all ! 
They  then  taught  that  the  earth  was  the  sanctuary.  Come 
to  find  out,  the  sanctuary  is  up  in  heaven,  and  Jesus  did 
really  come,  in  a  certain  sense,  that  very  year !  So  thej 
were  all  right,  after  all.  Don't  you  see  ?  Clear  as  day.  No  • 
they  have  the  whole  matter  removed  from  the  troublesom  j 
facts  of  earth,  where  we  can  test  them,  to  the  beautif:. 
theories  of  heaven,  where  no  one  can  go  to  report  on  ta,ctt: 
which  might  spoil  their  theories.  Now  they  can  specvr 
late  and  argue  in  safety.  But  sober,  thinking  men  see 
through  all  this.  It  is  merely  a  make-shift  to  get  out  of  si 
dilEculty. 

miller's  confession — HE  OPPOSES  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM. 

All  the  other  Adventists  long  ago  renounced  the  1843-4 
time-setting  as  an  error.  Thus:  "The  majority  of  Advent- 
ists took  the  position  that  the  time  was  an  error  of  human 
judgment."  History  of  the  Second  Advent  Message,  page 
383.  Hear  Mr.  Miller  himself:  "On  the  passing  of  my 
published  time,  I  frankly  acknowledged  my  disappointment. 
*  *  *  We  expected  the  personal  coming  of  Christ  at  that 
time;  and  now  to  contend  that  we  were  not  mistaken,  is  dis- 
honest. We  should  never  be  ashamed  frankly  to  confess  our 
errors.  I  have  no  confidence  in  any  of  the  new  theories 
that  grew  out  of  that  movement,  namely,  that  Christ  then 
came  as  the  Bridegroom,  that  the  door  of  mercy  was 
closed,  that  there  is  no  salvation  for  sinners,  that  the  seventh 
trumpet  then  sounded,  oi'  that  it  was  a  fulfillTrient  of  jprcyph- 


7S        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

ecy  in  cmy  sense,'^^  History  of  the  Advent  Message,  pages 
410, 412. 

From  this  we  see:  1.  That  Miller,  the  founder  and  leader 
of  that  move,  owned  that  it  was  an  error.  2.  He  repudiated 
the  idea  that  it  was  a  fulfillment  of  prophecy  in  any  sense. 
3.  He  especially  points  out  the  Seventh-Day  Advent  posi- 
tions as  utterly  wrong.  He  knew  all  about  their  arguments 
on  the  three  messages,  the  sanctuary,  the  Sabbath,  etc. ,  and 
yet  he  not  only  rejected  them,  but  earnestly  warned  his 
people  against  them,  so  that  very  few  of  the  original  Ad- 
ventists  ever  accepted  them.  Hear  Mrs.  White  herself  on 
this  point:  "  I  saw  leading  men  watching  William  Miller, 
fearing  lest  he  should  embrace  the  third  angel's  message 
and  the  commandments  of  God.  As  he  would  lean  towards 
the  light  from  heaven,  these  men  would  lay  some  plan  to 
draw  his  mind  away.  I  saw  a  human  influence  exerted  to 
keep  his  mind  in  darkness,  and  to  retain  his  influence  among 
them.  At  length  William  Miller  raised  his  voice  against 
the  light  from  heaven.''^     Spiritual  Gifts,  Vol.  I,  page  167. 

Thus  the  father  and  founder  of  Adventism  condemned 
and  opposed  the  position  which  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
took  with  regard  to  his  own  work.  He  had  sense  enough 
to  see,  and  honesty  enough  to  confess,  that  it  was  a  mistake. 
But  they  will  not  have  it  so.  They  know  better  than  he 
himself.  They  will  have  it  that  it  was  a  wonderful  fulfill- 
ment of  Rev.  14:  6,  7.  Miller  denies  it.  Thus  it  will  be 
seen  that  Seventh-Day  Adventists  give  an  interpretation  to 
Miller's  work  which  he  himself  condemned.  Not  a  leading 
man  in  Miller's  work  ever  embraced  the  views  of  the  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists,  but  have  always  opposed  them  as  fanatical 
and  as  a  side  issue.  None  of  the  leaders  of  Seventh-Day 
Adventism,  such  as  White,  Andrews,  Bates,  Rhodes,  etc., 
were  ever  of  any  note  in  Miller's  work,  though  they  were 
all  in  it;  yet  afterwards  they  claimed  to  be  the  only  ones 


ORIGIN,   HISTORY  AND  FAILURES  OF  ADVENTISM.         79 

who  had  the  right  view  of  it.     All  the  rest  were  '4n  the 
dark,"  '*  foolish  virgins,"  "  apostates,"  etc.     How  modest! 

MISTAKES   or   ADVENTISTS. 

A  people  who  have  made  as  many  mistakes  as  Advent- 
ists  have,  ought  to  be  very  modest  in  their  claims,  and 
ought  to  see  that  they  have  been  led  by  men  and  not  by 
the  Lord. 

1.  They  set  the  time  for  the  end  of  the  world  in  1843, 
and  failed. 

2.  They  set  it  again  in  1844  and  failed. 

3.  Elder  White,  the  leader  of  the  Seventh-Day  Advent- 
Ists,  set  1845  for  the  end,  and  failed  again. 

4.  They  held  in  1844  that  the  earth  was  the  sanctuary, 
another  mistake,  as  they  admit  now. 

5.  They  all  held  for  some  time  after  1844  that  probation 
f^r  sinners  was  ended — a  fearful  mistake.  See  pages  142-146 
of  this  book. 

6.  For  ten  years  Seventh-Day  Adventists  began  the 
Sabbath  at  6  p.m.,  instead  of  at  sunset  as  now.  Thus  they 
broke  the  Sabbath  every  week! 

7.  They  kept  their  children  out  of  school  for  years,  be- 
cause time  was  so  short  they  would  need  no  education! 
Those  children  now  have  grand-children! 

8.  They  gave  away  their  goods  in  1844,  because  they 
would  not  need  them  after  that! 

9.  They  would  not  vote,  for  that  was  like  the  fallen 
churches.     Now  they  vote  freely. 

10.  They  held  that  it  was  wrong  to  take  a  church  name, 
for  that  was  Babylon.     Now  they  have  a  name. 

11.  Church  organization  was  wrong,  for  that  was  like 
Babylon.     Now  they  organize. 

12.  For  years  they  said  it  was  denying  their  faith  to  ^et 
out  trees,  for  the3Mvould  never  grow  to  bear  fruit. 


80        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

13.  Led  by  a  revelation  from  Mrs.  White,  the  sisters  put 
.  >n  the  short  dress  with  pants.     None  of  them  wear  it  now. 

14.  For  thirty  years  they  would  not  take  up  any  collec- 
tion on  the  Sabbath.     Now  they  do  it  every  week. 

15.  For  fifty  years  they  have  been  expecting  the  end  of 
the  world  to  come  inside  of  five  years,  and  it  has  not  come  yet. 

16.  They  said  Jesus  would  come  to  the  earth  in  1844. 
Now  they  say  that  was  a  mistake;  he  came  to  judgment  in 
the  sanctuary  above.  Thus:  ''The  Adventists  of  1844 
*  *  thought  the  bridegroom  would  come;  and  then  he  did 
come — not  to  this  earth,  as  they  incorrectly  supposed,  but  to 
the  marriage.'^''  ''They  simply  mistook  the  kind  of  com- 
ing referred  to."  U.  Smith,  in  Parable  of  the  Ten  Vir- 
gins, pages  13,  14.  He  owns  that,  1.  They  got  the  time 
wrong  in  1843.  2.  The  place  wrong.  3.  The  event  wrong. 
Now  let  him  add,  4.  The  whole  thing  wrong,  and  he  will 
be  right ! 

17.  Then  they  said  the  door  was  shut,  Matt.  25:  10;  now 
they  say  that  this  was  wrong;  it  is  open  yet.  Thus:  "There 
can  be  no  other  place  for  the  shut  door  but  at  the  autumn 
of  1844."  Elder  White,  in  Present  Truth,  May,  1850. 
" The  door  is  still  open,  and  other  guests  may  come."  U. 
Smith,  in  Parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins,  page  IT,  February, 
1889.  These  are  the  people  who  always  know  they  are  just 
right! 

18.  They  once  adopted  a  rigid  vegetarian  diet — no  meat, 
no  butter,  only  two  meals  per  day,  etc. ,  but  it  was  a  failure. 
It  killed  many  and  ruined  more,  till  they  had  to  modify  it 
and  live  like  other  people. 

These  are  only  samples  out  of  numerous  mistakes  the  Ad- 
ventists have  made;  and  this  they  have  done  with  an  inspired 
prophetess  right  at  their  head  for  forty-four  years!  These 
simple,  undeniable  facts  alone  should  be  enough  to  open  the 
eyes  of  all  to  see  that  the  Lord  has  not  led  them  in  their  work. 


CHAPTER  V. 

MY  OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTIST 

SYSTEM. 

1.  It  was  born  in  a  mistake.  The  origin  of  Adventism 
was  in  the  Millerite  time-setting  of  1843  and  1844,  which 
all  know  was  a  mistake. 

2.  That  work  produced  great  fanaticism,  and  wrought 
disaster  to  thousands  of  souls. 

3.  Out  of  that  movement  has  grown  a  whole  brood  of 
errors,  as  they  themselves  will  admit. 

4.  Seventh-Day  Adventism  is  a  system  of  popery — one- 
man  power.  From  the  first,  Elder  White  took  this  position, 
and  molded  the  whole  system  to  fit  it.  He  would  and  did  rule 
and  dictate  in  everything  in  all  the  field.  He  would  make  it  hot 
for  one  who  dared  to  start  anything  which  he  had  not  bossed. 
He  was  head  and  president  of  everything.  So  now  a  few 
run  everything.  Th.!_  word  is  law.  It  is  contrary  to  the 
Gospel,  and  has  resulted  in  the  mental  degradation  of  the 
mass  of  that  people.     A  few  think  for  all. 

6.  The  mere  word  of  Mrs.  White,  an  uneducated  woman, 
is  accepted  as  the  voice  of  God  to  them  dictating  in  every- 
thing. "As  for  my  people,  children  are  their  oppressors, 
and  women  rule  over  them."     Isa.  3:  12. 

6.  From  the  start.  Elder  and  Mrs.  White  would  take  up 
publicly  the  faults,  real  or  imaginary,  of  any  one  and  every 
one,  ministers,  editors  and  all,  and  expose  them  before  the 
whole  congregation.  If  any  objected,  they  were  "rebels." 
All  this  was  then  printed  in  her  "Testimonies"  as  inspired, 
and  circulated  for  all  to  read.     This  has  begotten  in  all  a 

(81) 


82        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

habit  of  criticising  and  fault-finding,  which  is  reprehensible 
to  the  last  degree.  Any  one  might  have  foreseen  that  it  would 
result  in  this.  Mrs.  White  herself  now  says:  *  'There  has  been 
a  picking  at  straws.  And  when  there  were  no  real  difficulties 
in  the  church,  trials  have  been  manufactured."  Testimonies, 
Vol.  I,  page  144.  "Love  for  one  another  has  disappeared, 
and  a  fault-finding,  accusing  spirit  has  prevailed.  It  has 
been  considered  a  virtue  to  hunt  up  everything  about  one 
another  that  looked  wrong,  and  make  it  appear  fully  as  bad 
as  it  really  was."  Page  164.  Mrs.  White  herself  has  set 
the  example,  and  she  is  largely  followed,  till  they  ire  a  de- 
nomination of  fault-finders. 

7.  It  is  a  fundamental  doctrine  with  them  that  all  the 
other  churches  are  apostate  and  corr-"-'^  Hence  they  are 
eagerly  on  the  watch  for  every  evil  thing  they  can  pick  up 
against  them.  This  is  poor  business,  and  it  ^o^-*-^  in  them- 
selves a  hard,  unlovely  spirit. 

8.  They  are  constantly  on  the  watch  for  all  the  evidence 
they  can  gather,  showing  that  the  world  is  rapidly  growing 
worse.  This  again  has  a  bad  effect  on  themselves,  tending 
to  make  them  sour  and  gloomy. 

9.  Their  ministers  are  mere  lecturers,  going  from  place 
to  place,  staying  only  a  few  weeks  at  a  time,  and  repeating 
the  same  old  sermons  over  and  over.  As  a  consequence 
they  become  narrow  and  small  and  dry.  Their  preaching 
is  almost  wholly  doctrinal  and  argumentative.  This  makes 
them  hard  and  combative,  instead  of  tender  and  charitable. 

10.  Their  churches  are  very  small,  generally  numbering 
from  fifteen  to  forty.  They  have  no  pastors,  and  seldom 
any  preaching.  Their  meetings  are  held  on  Saturday,  when 
others  are  at  work,  hence  not  a  soul  attends  except  them- 
selves. So  their  meetings  are  small  and  dull  and  tiresome, 
especially  to  youth  and  children.  Never  mingling  with  othel 
chm-ches,  they  soon  fall  into  a  rut  and  become  very  dry. 


MY  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTIST  SYSTEM.  83 

The  gi'eat  mass  of  them  are  uncultured,  and  their  local 
leaders  are  farmers  or  mechanics.  The  decorum  seen  in 
other  churches  is  generally  wanting  in  theirs.  Their  chil- 
dren are  noisy,  and  often  the  members  too.  This  is  not 
good. 

11.  Their  theory  compels  them  to  be  narrow  and  un- 
charitable. They  cannot  work  at  all  with  other  Christians 
in  anything.  This  is  another  bad  feature  of  that  system. 
They  condemn  all  Christian  workers  who  do  not  follow 
them.  See  how  Jesus  rebuked  that  narrow,  bigoted  spirit: 
"And  John  answered  him,  saying.  Master,  we  saw  one  cast- 
ing out  devils  in  thy  name,  and  he  followeth  not  us;  and  we 
forbade  him  because  he  followeth  not  us.  But  Jesus  said, 
Forbid  him  not,  for  there  is  no  man  which  shall  do  a  miracle 
in  my  name,  that  can  lightly  speak  evil  of  me;  for  he  that 
is  not  against  us  is  on  our  part."     Mark  9:  38-4:0. 

12.  In  a  community  they  have  no  influence  whatever 
over  the  irreligious.  Not  one  of  them  attends  their  meet- 
ings; not  a  child  outside  of  their  own  families  attends  their 
Sabbath  schools.  Other  churches,  by  their  public  meetings, 
sermons  and  schools  on  Sundays,  have  a  mighty  influence 
for  good  over  the  unconverted. 

13.  Their  work  is  largely  proselyting.  Truly,  "they 
compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte."  They  will 
work  just  as  hard  to  get  a  good  old  Christian  out  of  another 
church  as  they  will  to  convert  a  sinner.  They  tear  down 
more  than  they  build  up. 

14.  They  count  all  lost  who  reject  their  "message." 
Their  missions  of  which  they  boast  so  much  are  the  dread 
of  all  other  missionaries,  as  they  work  as  hard  to  proselyte 
members  from  churches  as  they  do  to  convert  raw  heathen 
or  sinners.  Thus,  of  their  "  mission  "  in  London,  Elder  Has- 
kell says :  "  Thirteen  have  taken  their  stand  on  the  Sabbath. 
*     *    These  have  come  principally  from  the  Church  of 


84  SEVENTH-DAY  ADYENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

England."  Review,  April  10,  1888.  Yes,  their  converts 
are  always  "principally"  from  other  churches.  I  became 
sick  of  such  work. 

15.  By  their  arguments  they  confuse  the  minds  of  many, 
so  that  they  know  not  what  to  believe.  They  set  them 
against  other  churches,  and  so  they  drift  away  from  all  and 
are  entirely  lost.  Adventists  have  done  a  large  amount  of 
this  work,  and  their  influence  in  that  line  is  fearful. 

16.  Many  of  their  children  grow  up  to  keep  neither  Sat- 
urday nor  Sunday,  nor  to  attend  any  church,  and  hence  they 
become  irreligious. 

17.  Sunday-breakers  who  hunt,  fish,  sport  or  work  that 
day,  are  encouraged  in  it  by  the  arguments  and  examples 
of  the  Adventists.  This  certainly  is  evil.  A  community 
where  Sabbatarians  hve  has  no  quiet  rest-day  at  all. 

18.  The  power  of  God  does  not  attend  the  Advent  work 
as  it  should,  if  it  is  His  special  work.  During  my  long  ex- 
perience with  them,  I  was  impressed  with  the  fact  that,  as  a 
rule,  the  work  was  exceedingly  dry  and  powerless.  This 
disheartened  me  greatly.  I  saw  that  it  was  so  with  all  their 
ministers,  from  large  to  small.  Their  year  book  for  1888 
shows  that  they  did  not  average  one  convert  to  each  minister! 

19.  In  fields  where  they  have  been  the  longest  and  are 
the  best  known,  they  have  the  least  success.  As  soon  as  it 
is  well  understood  what  it  really  is,  they  can  do  nothing. 

20.  The  apostles,  the  reformers,  and  others  whom  God 
has  sent,  have  built  up  large  societies,  and  wielded  a  great 
influence  for  good  in  society.  But  the  Adventists  never  do. 
They  have  no  influence  for  good  on  society.  This  feature 
of  the  work  often  troubled  me.  Notice  how  the  heretical 
and  fanatical  sects  generally  withdraw  themselves  from 
community,  and  build  up  a  little  exclusive  society  by  them- 
selves. See  the  Shakers,  the  Mormons,  the  Oneida  Com- 
munity, the  followers  of  Mrs.  Southcott,  etc.     Seventh-Daj^ 


BfT  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  SEVENTH-DAT  ADVENTIST  SYSTEM.  86 

Adventists  become  a  little  exclusive  party  in  any  community 
where  they  are.  They  go  by  themselves,  and  take  part  in 
almost  nothing  which  interests  others.  Take  my  own  town 
as  an  example.  They  have  had  a  church  here  for  thirty 
years,  numbering  from  fifty  to  seventy-five.  They  take  no 
part  nor  interest  in  any  social,  literary,  moral,  sanitary, 
temperance  or  religious  work  outside  of  their  own.  In  these 
respects  their  influence  is  nothing.  They  are  never  thought 
of  as  helpers  in  any  such  necessary  and  noble  work.  They 
never  attend  a  prayer  meeting,  a  revival  efibrt,  or  a  Sabbath 
School  except  their  own.  The  Young  Men's  Christian  Asso- 
ciation, which  is  wholly  unsectarian,  is  doing  a  noble  work 
to  save  the  young  men  of  the  place.  Not  one  Adventist 
attends  or  takes  the  least  interest  in  it.  On  the  contrary, 
the  Adventist  store  is  open  for  trade,  and  thus  becomes  a 
resort  for  idlers  and  Sunday  breakers.  In  whatever  way 
considered,  their  influence  is  detrimental  to  the  best  inter- 
ests of  religion  and  good  society. 

How  different  it  was  with  the  followers  of  the  true  reform- 
ers, Luther,  Wesley,  Calvin,  etc.  They  stood  with  the 
people,  worked  for  them,  and  made  society  generally  better. 

The  moment  a  person  becomes  a  thoroughly  converted 
Seventh-Day  Adventist,  he  is  spoiled  for  any  further  useful- 
ness in  society.  This  is  their  record  everywhere,  as  all  will 
testify  who  know  them.  To  convert  men  to  their  doctrine 
is  the  all-absorbing  passion  of  their  lives,  leaving  them  nei- 
ther interest,  time  nor  means  for  anything  else. 

21.  I  came  to  see  that  the  great  burden  of  Adventists 
was  about  merely  speculative  theories  concerning  which  they 
cannot  hnow  positively  that  they  are  correct  after  all.  Such 
are  their  theories  about  the  sleep  of  the  dead,  destruction  ot 
the  wicked,  the  sanctuary  in  heaven,  the  time  when  Jesus 
will  come,  their  interpretation  of  the  image  beast  of  Rev. 
13;  11-18,  the  mark  of  the  beast,  etc.     Do  they  hnow  that 


86        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  RENOUNCED. 

they  are  right  about  these  ?  No,  they  think  they  are,  and 
others  equally  honest,  pious  and  intelligent,  think  differently. 
I  came  to  feel  that  it  was  fooKsh  for  me  to  spend  my  life 
over  what  after  all  I  did  not  know  was  really  so.  But  we  do 
know  that  it  is  right  to  evangelize  the  heathen  and  the  vicious 
of  our  cities,  to  save  the  drunken  and  fallen,  to  preach 
Christ  and  convert  sinners,  and  to  work  for  everything  that 
will  improve  the  condition  of  men  and  society  now.  But 
with  Adventists  these  things  are  secondary  or  neglected 
entirely,  while  they  constantly  put  their  pet  theories  first 
and  dwell  upon  them  most  of  the  time, 

22.  All  in  their  system  that  has  been  a  blessing  to  them 
is  held  also  by  all  evangelical  churches,  such  as  faith  in  God, 
in  Jesus  and  the  Bible,  a  pure  heart,  holy  life,  self-denial, 
etc.  Nothing  good  has  come  to  them  or  to  the  world  by 
those  doctrines  which  are  peculiar  to  Adventists,  as  the  time 
of  the  advent,  the  condition  of  the  dead,  the  Sabbath,  the 
visions,  etc. 

23.  Having  been  disappointed  so  many  times  and  so 
long,  taking  so  gloomy  a  view  of  things  generally,  they  are 
as  a  class  a  very  discouraged  and  unhappy  set  of  people. 

24.  It  is  "another  gospel,"  Gal.  1:  6,  which  the  apostles    " 
never  preached.     I  was  long  impressed  with  the  fact  that  we 
Adventists  preached  very  differently  from  the  apostles.    For    | 
instance,  we  were  always  preaching  and  writing  about  the    I 
Sabbath,  while  Paul  in  all  his  fourteen  epistles  mentions  it    1 
but  once^  Col.  2:  16,  and  then  only  to  condemn  it !     "We    t     _ 
find  in  the  New  Testament  'preach  the  gospel,'  fifty  times;     \ 
'preach  Christ,'  twenty-three  times;  'preach  the  word,'  sev-      \ 
enteen  times;    'preach  the  kingdom,'  eight  times;  'preach 

the  law,'  or  'the  Sabbath,'  not  once!"     Warner.  * 

25.  They  are  unpatriotic„  Not  a  soul  of  them,  man  or 
woman,  in  field  or  hospital,  lifted  a  finger  to  aid  in  putting 
down  the  rebellion  or  slavery.     They  staid  at  home  and 


MT  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTIST  SYSTEM.  87 

found  fault.  See  Mrs.  White's  Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  pages 
253-268.  If  a  man  had  gone  to  the  war  he  would  have 
been  expelled  from  the  church,  for  Mrs.  White  forbade  it. 
Hear  her:  "I  was  shown  that  God's  people,  who  are  his 
peculiar  treasure,  cannot  engage  in  this  perplexing  war,  for 
it  is  opposed  to  every  principle  of  their  faith.''  Testimonies, 
Vol.  I,  page  361.  They  hold  that  our  nation  is  "the  beast " 
of  Rev.  13:  11-18,  which  will  soon  become  a  tyranny. 
Mrs.  White  says:  "The  nation  will  be  on  the  side  of  the 
great  rebel  leader,"  the  Devil.  Testimony  No.  81,  page 
132.     So  they  all  feel. 

26.  Their  false  ideas  of  Sunday  leads  them  to  join  with 
Infidels,  atheists,  Jews,  saloon-keepers  and  the  irreligious 
generally  in  opposing  any  restriction  on  Sunday  desecration. 
It  is  one  of  the  anomalies  of  the  age  to  see  a  Christian  church 
unite  with  the  worst  elements  of  society  and  the  enemies  of 
Christ,  to  oppose  the  best  interests  of  society  and  the  sacri- 
ficing work  of  the  most  devout  and  intelligent  of  the  land. 
What  is  a  religion  good  for,  anyway,  which  spoils  a  person 
for  all  practical  usefulness  in  society  ?  what  does  it  mean  to 
' '  love  your  neighbor"  ? 

THE   ADVENTISTS   AND  THE   PROPHECIES. 

The  Adventists  claim  great  light  above  all  others  on  the 
prophecies.  The  old  women  and  the  little  children  among 
them  confidently  believe  that  they  know  more  about  the 
prophecies  than  all  the  commentators  and  scholars  in  the 
world.  They  can  tell  exactly  what  every  horn,  and  wing, 
head  and  tail,  trumpet  and  vial,  beast  or  angel  in  all  the 
prophecies  means  !  Any  possibility  of  mistake  ?  Not  the 
slightest.  And  yet  probably  no  people  ever  made  as  many 
mistakes  in  the  same  length  of  time  as  Adventists  have. 

Consider  how  little  critical  knowledge  of  exact  historical 
dates  and  facts  common  people  really  possess.     The  great 


88  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNC5ED. 

mass  of  intelligent  business  men,  farmers,  mechanics,  moth- 
ers and  housekeepers,  would  be  poor  judges  in  such  matters. 
The  most  of  them  know  nothing  about  it.  They  could  not 
mtelligently  dispute  any  statement  a  lecturer  might  make 
on  such  points.  These  Advent  preachers  go  before  such  an 
audience  night  after  night  for  six  or  eight  weeks,  with  their 
positive  statements  boldly  made  and  often  repeated,  till 
their  deluded  hearers  think  them  to  be  most  wonderful  his- 
torians, and  accept  their  statements  as  undoubted  truths! 
So  of  their  Bible  readers,  who  go  from  house  to  house  to 
expound  the  deep  things  of  God.  I  know  them  well,  have 
taught  many  of  them,  and  have  been  in  their  training 
schools.  Many  of  them  could  not  get  a  third  grade  cer- 

tificate, nor  have  they  ever  read  a  volume  of  history.  They 
simply  learn  by  rote,  parrot-like,  a  lesson  which  they  repeat 
glibly  to  the  astonished  farmer  or  unread  mother.  Get 
them  off  this  track  and  they  are  dumb.  They  are  like  those 
whom  Paul  rebuked,  "Desiring  to  be  teachers  of  the  law; 
understanding  neither  what  they  say  nor  whereof  they 
affirm."    I  Tim.  1 :  7.     This  fits  them  exactly.* 

*  See  Appendix  B  and  C. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE  TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE  MESSAGES. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  lay  great  stress  upon  their  inter- 
pretation of  this  symbol.  Rev.  13:  11-18.  Their  theory  of 
the  mark  of  the  beast,  and  his  image,  the  seal  of  God,  the 
Third  Angel's  Message,  and  all  their  special  work  about  the 
Sabbath  is  built  upon  their  assumption  concerning  that 
beast.  If  they  are  mistaken  here,  their  whole  system  col- 
lapses. They  claim  that  this  beast  is  the  United  States, 
and  that  soon  we  shall  have  here  church  and  state  united, 
the  image  of  the  beast,  the  papacy.  The  mark  of  the  beast 
is  Sunday-keeping.  A  law  will  enforce  this  upon  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists.  They  won't  obey.  Then  they  will  be 
outlawed,  persecuted,  and  condemned  to  death!  Of  all  the 
wild  Advent  speculations  in  the  prophecies,  this  deserves  to 
stand  among  the  wildest. 

1.  Does  the  Bible  say  that  this  beast  is  the  United 
States?  Oh,  no;  they  have  to  assume  and  argue  out  all 
this. 

2.  Do  they  know  that  their  arguments  on  this  are  infal- 
libly correct  ?     No. 

3.  Were  their  leaders  quite  as  sure  in  1843,  and  then 
again  in  1844,  that  they  were  right  ?  Yes  ;  and  yet  they 
failed  both  times. 

4.  Have  they  not  made  many  mistakes  in  interpreting 
the  prophecies  ?     Yes  ;  many  of  them. 

5.  Did  not  Elder  White,  their  leader,  set  three  different 
times  for  the  end  of  the  world,  and  fail  in  all  ?   Yes.   (P.  75.) 

6.  May  they  not  th^n poss'My  be  mistaken  also  in  this  ? 

(89) 


90  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Of  course,  as   they  must  admit.     So  their  system  rests 
upon  an  uncertainty.     Or  are  they  infallible  ? 

7.  Do  our  hopes  of  Heaven  depend  upon  such  uncer- 
tainties as  these  ?  "Would  it  not  be  safer  to  follow  the  plain 
precepts  of  Christ  (Matt.  7  :  24,  25),  than  to  run  after  these 
uncertain  speculations  ?  Better  than  to  follow  the  lead  of 
Adventists  who  have  been  making  mistakes  over  and  over 
again  for  eighty  years  ?  "  Take  heed  that  no  man  deceive 
you."  Jesus.  Matt.  24:  4.  I  will  offer  a  few  out  of  many 
facts  showing  that  their  application  of  this  symbol  is  not 
correct. 

While  Seventh-Day  Adventists  largely  quote  and  follow 
the  leading  commentators  and  Protestant  churches  in  their 
application  of  the  other  beasts,  here  they  take  a  wild  leap 
into  the  dark,  unsupported  by  one  single  biblical  scholar. 
Evidently  this  lamb-like  beast  represents  the  Papacy,  or 
the  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  power  of  the  Roman  church, 
and  is  so  applied  by  every  commentator  I  have  consulted. 
Thus:  '  'This  beast  is  the  spiritual  Latin  empire,  or,  in  other 
words,  the  Romish  hierarchy."  Clarke,  on  Rev.  13:  11. 
"It  was,  therefore,  the  emblem  of  the  Roman  hierarchy." 
Scott,  on  Rev.  13:  11.  ''The  generality  of  interpreter? 
confine  this  second  beast  to  the  papal  power."  Eclectic 
Commentary  on  Rev.  13:  11-18.  "An  exact  description  of 
the  rise  of  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Papacy."  Notes  on 
Rev.  13:  11,  by  the  American  Tract  Society.  "The  beast 
with  two  horns  like  a  lamb  is  the  Roman  hierarchy,  or  bodK 
of  the  clergy,  regular  and  secular."  Joseph  Benson.  "The 
two-horned  beast  or  Romish  church."  Bisho'p  Newton. 
Albert  Barnes  the  same.  Indeed,  there  is  a  perfect  agree- 
ment among  all  commentators  that  this  lamb-like  beast  rep- 
resents the  Papacy.  For  the  argument  on  this  I  only  need 
refer  the  readers  to  the  commentaries. 

Against    this    unanimous  agreement  of    all    Protestant 


THE  TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE   MESSAGES.  9\ 

churches  and  authorities,  you  have  the  unsupported  specu- 
lations of  the  Adventists,  who  have  made  so  many  mistakes 
before.  The  proofs  that  this  lamb-like  beast  is  the  Papacy 
are  many,  clear,  and  easily  seen ;  while  the  effort  to  apply  it  to 
the  United  States  is  labored,  and  the  arguments  strained, 
long,  and  far-fetched.  Thua,  in  U.  Smith's  "Thoughts  on 
Revelation,"  he  devotes  only  eleven  pages  to  the  dragon  of 
Chapter  12:  1-17,  and  only  eight  pages  to  the  leopard  beast 
of  Chapter  13:  1-10,  but  wades  heavily  through  over  one 
hundred  pages  on  the  eight  verses  relating  to  the  two-horned 
beast!  This  alone  is  proof  of  the  desperate  task  he  had  on 
hand  to  prove  that  it  was  the  United  States. 

Beginning  with  Rev.  11:  19,  and  ending  with  Rev.  14:  5, 
is  a  line  of  prophecy  reaching  from  the  First  to  the  Second 
Advent — the  dragon,  the  leopard  beast,  and  the  lamb-like 
beast.  The  dragon.  Chapter  "'2:  1-17,  is  the  pagan  Roman 
empire.  So  all  agree;  Seventh-Day  Adventists  as  well.  The 
dragon  had  "seven  heads  and  ten  horns."  Verse  3.  This 
is  succeeded.  Chapter  13:  1-10,  by  the  leopard  beast  with 
"seven  heads  and  ten  horns."  What  is  this?  Evidently 
the  same  Roman  empire,  the  same  ten  kingdoms  of  Europe, 
with  merely  a  change  of  religion  from  pagan  to  Catholic. 
Thus,  Dr.  Clarke:  "The  beast  here  described  is  the  Latin 
empire,  which  supported  the  Romish  or  Latin  church."  On 
Rev.  13:  1.  So  Scott  and  all  I  have  seen.  This  was  the 
civil  or  political  power  of  the  ten  kingdoms  after  professing 
Christianity.  That  this  ten-horned  leopard  beast  is  not  the 
Papacy  nor  the  Catholic  church,  is  shown  by  Rev.  17:1-5, 
where  the  same  beast  is  again  introduced  with  a  woman 
riding  on  and  ruling  over  it.  The  beast  is  the  civil  power, 
while  the  woman  is  the  church.  Even  Elder  Smith  had  to 
confess  this.  He  says:  "We  here  have  the  woman,  the 
church,  seated  upon  a  scarlet-colored  beast,  the  civil 
power    by    which    she    is    upheld    and    which    she    con- 


92  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

trols  and  guides  to  her  own  ends  as  a  rider  controls  a 
horse."  On  Rev.  17:  1-5.  So,  then,  the  leopard  beast  is 
the  civil  power.  Just  what  it  is  in  He  v.  17  is  what  it  is  in 
Rev.  13.  Did  the  Papacy  have  ten  horns?  Did  it  have 
seven  heads?    No;  but  political  Rome  did. 

That  the  lamb  like  beast  of  Rev.  13: 11-18  is  not  the  United 
States  at  all,  but  is  the  Papacy,  or  ecclesiastical  and  spirit- 
ual power  of  the  Romish  church,  is  manifest. 

1.  Rev.  17:  1-5,  where  the  woman,  the  church,  is  dis- 
tinct from  the  ten-homed  leopard  beast  and  rules  over  it, 
shows  that  the  beast  is  not  the  Papacy. 

2.  Just  so;  the  lamb-like  beast  of  Rev.  13  rules  through 
the  power  of  the  leopard  beast. 

3.  Whatever  the  woman  is  in  Rev.  17,  that  is  what  the 
lamb-like  beast  is  in  Rev.  13.  Hence,  both  are  the  papal 
power  of  Rome. 

Notice  the  similarity  of  the  two:  a  woman  m  one  place,  a 
lamb  in  the  other,  both  having  the  appearance  of  gentleness 
and  innocence.  The  church  is  represented  by  a  pure  woman, 
n.  Cor.  11:  2,  and  by  lambs,  John  21:  15;  false  religious 
teachers  are  represented  by  bad  women,  Rev.  2:  18-23,  and 
by  beasts  clothed  like  sheep.  Matt.  7:  15.  The  woman  and 
the  beast  work  together  in  Chapter  17;  so  the  lamb-like 
beast  and  the  leopard  beast  work  together  in  Rev.  13:  12, 14. 
The  woman  is  drunk  with  the  blood  of  saints.  Rev.  17:  6; 
the  lamb  beast  causes  the  saints  to  be  killed,  Rev.  13:  15. 
The  woman  is  burned  with  fire,  Rev.  18:  8;  so  is  the  lamb 
beast.  Rev.  19:  20.  The  woman  sits  upon  the  beast,  guid- 
ing and  ruling  it.  Rev.  17:  3;  so  the  lamb  beast  "exer- 
ciseth  all  the  power  of  the  first  beast,"  Rev.  13:  12.  It 
does  not  simply  exercise  similar  power,  or  as  much  power, 
as  the  beast,  but  it  uses  the  power  of  the  beast  itself,  the 
same  as  the  woman  did.  He  does  not  himself  kill  anyone, 
but  causes  them  to  be  killed,  Rev.  13:  15.     This  is  exactlj^ 


THE  TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE  MESSAGES.  93 

what  the  Papacy  did.  It  ruled  over  the  kings  of  earth, 
Rev.  17:  18,  and  "caused^'  heretics  to  be  put  to  death  by 
the  secular  power.  "He  exerciseth  all  the  power  of  the 
first  beast." 

It  has  ever  been  the  boast  of  the  Roman  church  that  she 
never  puts  heretics  to  death.  She  simply  anathematizes 
them,  turns  them  over  to  the  civil  powers,  and  by  her  influ- 
ence with  these,  causes  them  to  be  killed  by  the  secular 
powers.  How  exact  is  the  language  of  the  prophecy:  he 
"causeth"  it  to  be  done;  "he  exerciseth  [or  useth]  all  the 
power  of  the  first  beast." 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  argue  that  the  leopard  beast, 
Rev.  13:  1-10,  is  the  papacy,  because  it  does  the  same  work 
as  the  little  horn  of  Dan.  7:  8,  25,  which  is  agreed  by  all  to 
be  the  papacy.  But  they  overlook  the  fact  that  the  leopard 
beast  does  all  its  work  simply  as  the  agent  of  the  church, 
the  woman  in  Rev.  17,  and  the  lamb-like  beast  in  Chap.  13. 
Hence,  of  course,  it  does  the  same  work  that  the  little  horn 
of  Dan.  7  does. 

Notice  the  inseparable  connection  between  the  leopard 
beast  and  the  two-horned  beast,  the  Roman  civil  government 
and  the  Papacy.  1.  The  lamb-like  beast  controls  all  the 
power  of  the  first  beast.  Verse  12.  2.  He  does  this  in  the 
presence  and  in  the  sight  of  the  beast.  Verses  12,  14.  This 
shows  that  both  occupy  the  same  territory.  3.  He  causes 
men  to  worship  the  beast.  Verse  12.  4.  He  causes  men  to 
make  an  image  to  the  beast.  Verse  14.  5.  He  causes  men 
to  receive  the  mark  of  the  beast.  Verses  16,  17.  6.  The 
two  beasts  are  working  together  when  Christ  comes.  Rev. 
19,  20.  7.  Together  they  go  into  the  fire.  Verse  20.  Evi- 
dently, then,  these  two  beasts  operate  together  in  all  their 
work.  This  is  precisely  what  the  Catholic  church  and  the 
Catholic  political  powers  of  Europe  have  done  for  ages,  as 
all  know.    Has  the  United  States  ever  thus  co-operated  with 


94        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

the  papacy  ?  Emphatically,  no.  Is  any  man  fanatical 
enough  to  believe  that  it  ever  will  ?  The  papacy  has  exactly 
fulfilled  every  specification  of  the  lamb-like  beast. 

1.  It  came  up  in  the  right  place  "  in  his  presence."  Dia- 
glott,  Bible  Union,  Living  Oracles,  etc. 

2.  It  came  up  at  the  right  time  after  the  wounding  of  the 
head.  Rev.  13:  3.  The  interpretation  adopted  by  Clarke, 
Scott,  and  the  best  authors,  ''refers  it  to  the  extinction  of 
the  old  Roman  Empire  under  the  imperial  form  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  fifth  century,  and  its  revival  again  under  Charle- 
magne."   Notes  of  Am.  Tract  Society. 

3.  The  papacy  came  up  in  the  right  manner,  peaceably 
and  quietly. 

4.  It  had  the  appearance  of  a  lamb. 
6.  It  has  spoken  like  a  dragon. 

6.  It  has  exercised  all  the  power  of  civil  Rome. 

7.  It  brought  the  earth  in  subjection  to  Rome. 

8.  By  its  great  signs  and  wonders  it  has  deceived  mill- 
ions for  ages. 

9.  It  has  made  an  image  to  the  beast. 

10.  It  has  caused  millions  to  be  killed. 

11.  It  has  imposed  its  worship  and  mark  upon  all. 

12.  It  has  prohibited  heretics  from  buying  or  selling. 
This  is  too  well  known  to  require  proof. 

The  lamb-like  beast  is  not  the  United  States;  because 
1.  "  This  two-horned  beast  symbolizes  a  religious  or  eccle- 
siastical government.  The  false  prophet  of  Rev.  19:  20 
performs  the  same  work  as  this  beast  (see  verse  14),  and 
therefore  must  be  identical  with  it.  This  is  admitted  by 
Seventh-Day  Adventists.  Now,  as  a  prophet  is  a  religious 
teacher,  a  false  prophet  must  be  a  false  religious  teacher; 
and  as  this  applies  to  a  government,  it  must  therefore  apply 
to  an  ecclesiastical  government.  Such  the  United  States  is 
not,  for  its  government  impurely  political;  for  one  clause  of 


THE   TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE   MESSAGES.  95 

it«  constitution  is  as  follows:  'Congress  shall  make  no  la/w 
respecting  an  establishment  of  religion^  or  prohibiting  the 
free  exercise  thereof. ' "  The  Two-Horned  Beast,  by  A.  C. 
Long. 

2.  The  manner  of  its  rise.  The  lamb-like  beast  comes  up 
quietly  and  peaceably  "out  of  the  earth,"  Rev.  13:  11,  while 
the  other  beasts  come  up  out  of  the  troubled  sea.  Rev.  13:  1. 
So  the  papacy  came  up  quietly  at  first,  with  all  the  appear- 
ance of  a  lamb,  but  afterwards  it  spoke  like  a  dragon.  Wit- 
ness its  persecutions  and  tyranny.  Not  so  with  our  nation. 
It  was  born  in  a  terrible  war  of  seven  years.  Then  followed 
the  war  of  1812,  the  war  with  Mexico,  the  war  of  the  Rebel- 
lion, and  war  with  Indians  almost  every  year.  Not  very 
peaceable. 

3.  It  was  to  exercise  all  the  power  of  the  first  beast. 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  say  that  the  first  beast  is  the  Papacy, 
which  put  to  death  over  fifty  million  people,  ruled  over 
other  kings,  and  over  the  consciences  of  men.  Even  Ad- 
ventists do  not  believe  that  the  United  States  will  do  this. 

4.  * 'Church  and  state  must  be  united.  This  is  against 
one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  government.  The 
constitution  expressly  forbids  it,  consequently  it  must  first 
be  changed.  And  will  the  intelligent  voters  of  these  United 
States,  with  the  history  of  past  ages  before  them,  deliber- 
rately  change  one  of  the  main  pillars  of  our  government, 
and  raise  up  the  Inquisition,  the  block,  the  rack,  etc. ,  and 
thus  put  to  death  many  persons,  simply  for  their  religious 
faith  ?  It  does  not  look  reasonable. "  A.  C.  Long.  Besides, 
all  the  tendency  of  the  age  is  against  a  union  of  church  and 
state. 

ARGUMENTS  ANSWERED. 

\.  "The  two-horned  beast  must  be  the  United  States, 
because  it  can  apply  nowhere  else."  Answer:  It  applies 
admirably  to  the  Papacy. 


96  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

2.  •'  There  must  be  some  symbol  to  represent  this  great 
nation."  Answer :  There  is  none  for  Kussia,  for  Mexico, 
Brazil,  Japan,  China,  and  a  dozen  other  nations,  most  of 
them  professing  Christianity  too. 

3.  "  The  United  States  came  up  at  the  right  time,  about 
1798,  when  the  head  received  its  deadly  wound.  Rev.  13:  3." 
Answer:  Thid  very  point  overthrows  the  argument  for  the 
United  States;  for  that  wound  was  given  at  the  very  rise  of 
the  leopard  beast,  more  than  1,200  years  before  1798.  Look 
at  verses  3-10;  all  the  work  of  the  beast  comes  after  the 
wound  and  not  hefore.  This  locates  the  rise  of  the  lamb- 
like beast  just  when  the  Papacy  rose. 

4.  "The  United  States  came  up  in  the  right  place." 
That  is  exactly  what  it  did  not  do.  The  beast  is  located  in 
Europe,  and  a  whole  ocean  rolls  between  the  two;  whereas 
the  two-horned  beast  was  to  come  up  "in  his  presence,"  in 
Europe,  not  America. 

5.  *  *Our  government  has  ^come  up'  from  small  beginnings 
to  a  wonderful  nation."  Answer:  The  Papacy  began  much 
smaller,  and  has  "come  up"  to  be  much  larger. 

6.  "Our  government  is  lamb-like."  So  was  the  Papacy 
in  its  rise  and  all  its  professions.  A  lamb  in  appearance,  a 
dragon  at  heart,  fits  Rome  much  better.  Our  government 
does  not  put  on  sheep's  clothes  to  hide  wicked  designs.  It 
acts  openly  and  boldly.  But  the  Papacy  professed  out- 
wardly to  be  a  humble  follower  of  the  Lamb,  while  inwardly 
it  was  a  dragon. 

7.  "No  crowns  on  his  horns.  Hence,  it  must  be  a  re- 
public— the  United  States."  Answer:  The  ten-horned  beast 
of  Dan.  7  had  no  crowns,  yet  all  were  kingly  governments. 
So  the  dragon.  Rev.  12:  3,  had  no  crowns  on  his  ten  horns, 
yet  all  were  kingly  governments.  So  there  were  crowns  upon 
his  seven  heads,  yet  several  of  these  he^^ds  represented  forms 
of  government  that  h^>d  «o  cj-owhs-     So  this  argument  fails. 


THE   TWO-HORNED   BEAST  AND  THE   MESSAGES.  97 

8.  ** Spiritualism  has  wrought  the  miracles  here.''  The 
ttiiracles  of  spiritualism  are  a  humbug,  nor  are  they  in  any 
way  recognized  or  used  by  our  nation  in  making  laws.  But 
in  the  prophecy  the  miracles  are  wrought  by  official  author- 
ity, and  not  by  private  individuals,  wrought  to  secure  and 
enforce  laws  for  persecution.  Verse  14.  Spiritualism  does 
not  do  this.  And  surely  our  nation  will  never  lower  itself 
to  the  working  of  miracles  by  official  authority!  But  papal 
Rome  has  abounded  in  lying  miracles,  by  which  she  de- 
ceived her  followers  for  ages.  Our  nation  is  now  over  one 
hundred  years  old,  and,  according  to  Adventists,  five  or  ten 
years  more  will  end  its  work.  But  out  of  eight  verses  of 
the  prophecy  only  one  is  yet  fulfilled,  if  our  nation. 

1.  The  beast  was  to  come  up.     Fulfilled. 

2.  He  was  to  come  out  of  the  earth.     Fulfilled. 

3.  Was  to  have  two  horns.     Not  fulfilled. 

4.  Was  to  look  like  a  lamb.     Fulfilled. 

But  all  these  specifications  are  much  better  fulfilled  by  the 
Papacy  than  by  the  United  States. 

5.  Was  to  speak  as  a  dragon.     Not  fulfilled. 

6.  Was  to  exercise  all  the  power  of  the  first  beast.  Not 
fulfilled.  -. 

7.  Must  cause  the  earth  to  worship  the  first  beast.  Not 
fulfilled. 

8.  Must  do  great  wonders.     Not  fulfilled. 

9.  Must  bring  fire  from  Heaven.     Not  fulfilled. 

10.  Work  miracles.     Not  fulfilled. 

11.  Is  to  make  an  image  to  the  beast.     Not  fulfilled. 

12.  The  image  is  to  speak.     Not  fulfilled. 

13.  To  cause  all  to  be  killed  who  do  not  worship  the 
beast.  Not  fulfilled. 

14.  To  cause  all  to  receive  the  mark.     Not  fulfilled. 

15.  To  prohibit  all  from  buying  or  selling  who  do  not 
have  the  mark.     Not  fulfilled. 


98        SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Out  of  fifteen  points  only  four  have  been  fulfilled,  and 
these  relate  simply  to  its  rise.  Of  all  the  work  it  was  to  do, 
not  a  thing  has  been  done  yet.  Adventists  are  always  say- 
ing that  the  rest  is  just  about  to  be  done.  But  in  the  past 
forty  years  not  one  single  point  has  been  fulfilled,  nor  is 
there  the  least  prospect  that  it  ever  will  be.  Unless  God 
works  a  miracle,  no  such  thing  as  they  are  looking  for  can 
be  accomplished  anyway. 

The  mark  was  to  be  enforced  upon  bondmen,  verse  16; 
but  slavery  is  abolished,  and  that  can  not  be  fulfilled  here, 
but  it  was  fulfilled  under  papal  Kome.  Souls  were  beheaded 
for  not  worshiping  the  beast.  Rev.  20:  4.  This  was  all 
fulfilled  under  the  Papacy,  but  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
themselves  say  no  one  will  be  killed  here. 

We  have  now  proved  conclusively  that  the  two-horned 
beast  is  not  the  United  States.  This  being  so,  then  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  are  wrong  on  the  image  of  the  beast,  the 
mark  of  the  beast,  the  Third  Angel's  Message,  and  the  Sun- 
day question,  and  hence  their  whole  theory  collapses. 

THE   IMAGE   OF  THE   BEAST.      WHAT  IS  IT? 

In  Rev.  13:  14-17;  14:  9-11;  15:  2;  19:  20;  20:  4,  great 
prominence  is  given  to  ''the  image  of  the  beast."  God's 
wrath  is  threatened  against  all  who  worship  it.  It  must, 
then,  be  some  very  wicked  thing.  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
claim  that  the  image  will  be  formed  by  a  union  of  church 
and  state  in  our  nation.  That  will  be  an  image  to  Catholi- 
cism, the  beast,  they  say.  See  "Thoughts  on  the  Revela- 
tion," page  681.  Their  great  mission  is  to  warn  men  of 
this  coming  image.  Sunday-keeping,  the  Pope's  Sabbath,  is 
to  be  the  chief  feature  of  this  image.  After  thorough  inves- 
tisration,  I  am  satisfied  that  there  is  no  truth  in  this  claim. 

1 .  If  a  union  of  church  and  state  constitutes  an  image  to 
he  beast,  then  this  image  has  been  formed  ages  ago,  and  by 


THE   TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE   MESSAGES.  99 

different  nations,  wherever  there  has  been  a  union  of  tnurch 
and  state  as  in  England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  Germany, 
Switzerland,  Russia,  Norway  and  Sweden,  Mexico,  Brazil, 
Abyssinia,  Puritan  New  England,  etc.  But  this  would  over- 
throw the  Seventh-Day  Adventist  theory  that  the  image  has 
never  yet  been  formed. 

2.  They  say  that  the  Papacy  is  the  beast  to  whom  the 
image  is  formed.  Elder  Smith  thus  defines  the  Papacy: 
"The  Papacy,  then,  was  a  church  clothed  with  civil  power." 
Thoughts  on  Revelations,  page  585.  Is  this  definition  cor- 
rect? No;  it  is  utterly  false,  as  every  scholar  knows.  It 
was  made  to  fit  a  theory  as  false  as  the  definition.  Look  at 
any  dictionary.  "Papacy:  1.  The  office  and  dignity  of  the 
Pope.  "^  *  *  2.  The  Popes  taken  collectively."  Web.  The 
Papacy  existed  long  before  it  was  clothed  with  civil  power. 
[t  has  no  civil  power  now,  yet  it  is  the  Papacy  still.  So, 
then,  an  image  to  the  Papacy  does  not  necessarily  include 
civil  power  or  a  union  of  church  and  state  at  all.  On  this 
false  assumption  is  built  the  Advent  theory  of  the  image. 

3.  What  is  the  Papacy  ?  See  Webster  above.  It  is  that 
ecclesiastical  system  of  worship  of  which  the  Pope  is  head. 
Its  distinguishing  marks  are  these:  1.  Popes.  2.  Cardinals. 
3.  Monks.  4.  Nuns.  5.  Celibacy.  6.  The  mass.  7. 
Worship  of  the  virgin.  8.  Worship  of  saints.  9.  Use  of 
images.  10.  Sign  of  the  cross.  11.  The  confessional.  12. 
Use  of  incense.  13.  Holy  water.  14.  Claim  of  infallibility. 
15.  A  gorgeous  worship,  and  the  like.  This  is  the  Papacy, 
as  known  to  everybody  the  world  over.  Now  unite  our 
Protestant  churches  with  our  state,  pass  a  law  and  fine  Sab- 
bath-keepers, and  how  many  of  the  above  distinguishing 
features  of  the  Papacy  would  you  have?  Not  one.  In 
order  to  have  an  image  to  the  Papacy,  you  must  have  ar 
least  the  main  features  of  it,  as  above.  But  even  Adventists 
do  not  expect  to  see  any  of  the  above  items  in  their  Sunday 


JOO       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

law.     Their  idea  of  an  image  to  the  beast  is  a  senseless, 
unscriptural  affair  from  the  first  to  last. 

4.  A  stringent  national  Sunday  law,  such  as  Adventist^ 
expect,  would  by  no  means  constitute  an  image  to  the 
Papacy;  because  the  Catholics  never  had  nor  taught  such 
a  Sunday  institution  as  that  would  be.  Their  Sunday  is, 
and  always  has  been,  a  loose  holiday,  a  day  for  games, 
sports,  beer  gardens,  saloons,  dancing,  voting,  and  even 
work,  with  a  little  church  service  and  Mass  in  the  morning. 
Look  at  the  Sunday  in  any  Catholic  country  or  community. 
Such  a  strict  Sunday  as  Adventists  expect  would  be  no 
more  like  that  than  a  sheep  is  like  an  ox;  hence,  not  an 
image  to  it.  The  Adventists  themselves  have  shown  that 
the  doctrine  of  a  strict  Sunday  did  not  originate  with  the 
Catholics,  but  with  the  Presbyterians  and  Puritans  in  the 
sixteenth  century.  History  of  the  Sabbath,  Chapter  XXV. 
So,  then,  their  Sunday  law  would  constitute  an  image  to 
the  church  of  Scotland  instead  of  the  church  of  Rome  I 

So  their  theory  breaks  down  on  all  sides; 

6.  All  this  on  the  supposition  that  the  Papacy  is  ^he 
leopard  beast  to  which  the  image  is  to  be  made.  But  we 
have  proved  that  the  leopard  beast  is  not  the  Papacy,  but 
the  empire  of  Rome  under  the  ten  kingdoms  after  their 
adoption  of  Christianity.  But  their  conversion  was  only 
nominal.  They  brought  with  them  very  largely  their  pagan 
doctrines,  customs,  religious  rites,  images,  gods,  shrines, 
temples,  and  pomp  of  worship.  This  became  the  model 
after  which  the  Papacy  was  gradually  but  finally  formed. 
The  Papacy  in  its  full  and  final  development  was  an  image 
of  this  half  heathen,  half  Christian,  worldly  kingdom. 

THE  DEADLY  WOUND,   AND  HOW  IT  WAS  HEALED. 

The  utter  fallacy  of  the  Seventh-Day  Adventist  theory  oi 
these  beasts  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  they  locate  the  deadly 


THE   TWO-HORNED   BEAST  AND   THE   MESSAGES.  101 

wound  of  Rev.  13:  3  in  1798,  at  the  end  of  the  forty  two 
months  of  verse  5,  after  nearly  all  the  work  of  the  beast  is 
done.  But  in  the  prophecy  it  is  distinctly  located  in  the 
very  beginning  of  the  work  of  the  leopard  beast.  Read  Rev. 
13:  1-10,  and  see  where  the  wound  was  made,  verse  3.  The 
worship  of  the  beast,  his  power,  his  blasphemies,  his  perse- 
cutions of  the  saints,  his  forty-two  months,  his  1260  years 
reign,  the  subjection  of  all  the  earth  to  him — all  these  come 
after  the  wound  is  healed,  not  before.  On  the  overthrow 
of  paganism,  the  breaking  up  of  the  empire  by  the  northern 
barbarians,  and  the  final  extinction  of  the  western  empire,  it 
looked  as  though  the  Roman  empire  was  about  to  be  entirely 
extinguished.  But  right  here  Christianity  conquered  those 
barbarians,  and  brought  them  under  the  rising  influence  of 
the  Papacy.  New  life  was  infused  into  the  old  carcass,  the 
empire  was  revived,  the  wound  was  healed.  See  Barnes, 
Clarke,  Scott,  etc. 

THE   MARK   OF  THE  BEAST!   WHAT  IS  FT? 

1.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  assert  in  the  most  positive 
manner  that  the  Pope  changed  cue  Sabbath  to  Sunday. 
'^  The  Pope  has  changed  the  day  of  rest  from  the  seventh  to 
the  first  day."     Mrs.  White,  Early  Writings,  page  55. 

2.  Then  they  affirm  that  "  Sunday-keeping  must  be  the 
mark  of  the  beast."  The  Marvel  of  Nations,  by  U.  Smith, 
page  183.  ^'The  Sunday  Sabbath  is  purely  a  child  of  the 
Papacy.  It  is  the  mark  of  the  beast."  Advent  Review, 
Vol.  I,  No.  2,  August,  1850.  They  thunder  this  into  the 
ears  of  people,  and  threaten  them  with  God's  wrath  if  they 
keep  Sunday,  till  they  frighten  ignorant  souls  to  give  it  up. 

3.  This  change  in  the  Sabbath,  they  say,  was  made  by 
the  Popes  at  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  364.  Replies 
to  Elder  Canright,  page  151.    This  was  over  1500  years  ago. 

4.  All  who  keep  Sunday,  they  assert,  worship  the  beast 


102  SEVENTH-DAY  ADTENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

and  receive  his  mark.  *'  Sunday-i^eeping  is  an  institution  of 
the  first  beast,  and  all  who  submit  to  obey  this  institution 
emphatically  worship  the  first  beast  and  receive  his  mark, 
*the  mark  of  the  beast.'  *  -^  *  Those  who  worship  the 
beast  and  his  image  by  observing  the  first  day  are  certainly 
idolaters,  as  were  the  worshipers  of  the  golden  calf."  Ad- 
vent Review  Extra,  pages  10  and  11,  August,  1850.  This 
language  is  too  plain  to  be  mistaken.  All  who  keep  Sunday 
have  the  mark  of  the  beast. 

5.  But,  strange  to  tell,  they  now  all  deny  that  any  one  has 
ever  had  the  mark  of  the  beast.  "  We  have  never  so  held," 
says  Smith,  Marvel  of  Nations,  page  184.  All  right,  though 
this  is  a  square  denial  of  what  they  once  taught,  as  above. 
It  is  a  common  thing  for  them  to  change  their  positions  and 
then  deny  it.     We  proceed: 

6.  The  United  States  will  soon  pass  a  strict  Sunday  law 
and  unite  church  and  state;  then  all  who  still  keep  Sunday 
will  have  the  mark.     Marvel  of  Nations,  page  185. 

ANSWER. 

Does  the  Bible  say  that  the  mark  of  the  beast  is  keeping 
Sunday  ?  No,  indeed.  That  is  only  another  one  of  their 
assumptions.  To  establish  this,  they  have  to  make  a  long, 
roundabout  set  of  arguments,  built  upon  inferences  none  of 
which  are  sound.     Their  theory  is  false,  because: 

1.  The  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished  at  the  cross.  [Col. 
2:  16.]    Hence,  it  was  not  changed  by  the  Pope. 

2.  Sunda}'  is  the  Lord's  day  of  Rev.  1:  18.  See  Chapter 
X  of  this  book. 

3.  The  Pope  never  changed  the  Sabbath.  This  point  I 
have  proved  beyond  all  question  in  Chapter  XI.  This  fact 
alone  upsets  their  whole  argument  on  the  mark  of  the  beast. 

4.  The  Papacy  is  not  the  beast  to  whom  the  image  is  made, 
as  they  assume.   Here  again  their  whole  theory  is  demolished. 


THE   TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE   MESSAGES.         103 

5.  Merely  keeping  Sunday  would  not  be  an  image  to  the 
Papacy  any  way,  as  I  have  shown. 

6.  The  two-horned  beast  is  not  the  United  States  at  all, 
but  is  the  Papacy,  as  I  have  clearly  proved. 

7.  The  image  to  the  beast  was  made  ages  ago  by  the 
Papacy.  So  every  one  of  their  arguments  for  the  mark  of 
the  beast  fails. 

THE   ABSURDITIES  OF  THEIR  POSITION. 

1.  Sunday-keeping  has  been  the  mark  of  the  beast  for 
1500  years.  During  all  this  long  time  millions  have  kept 
Sunday  on  the  sole  authority  of  the  Roman  church,  and  yet 
no  one  had  the  mark  ! 

2.  The  keeping  of  Sunday  has  been  time  and  again  and 
:n  many  countries  enforced  by  law  and  severe  penalties,  just 
as  they  say  it  will  be  in  the  future  here,  and  yet  none  of 
those  who  have  kept  it  as  thus  enforced  have  had  the  mark 
of  the  beast ! 

3.  Church  and  state  have  been  united  in  various  coun- 
tries, and  have  enforced  this  institution  of  the  Papacy,  as 
they  call  it,  and  yet  it  was  not  enforcing  the  mark  of  the 
beast ! 

4.  For  over  1500  years,  taking  their  own  dates,  all  the 
pious  of  the  earth,  the  mart3rrs,  the  reformers,  the  Luthers, 
Wesley s  and  Judsons,  have  observed  Sunday  and  enjoyed 
the  blessing  of  God,  but  now,  all  at  once,  the  whole  world, 
Christians  and  all,  are  to  bo  damned  and  drink  the  wrath  of 
God  for  doing  just  what  all  holy  men  have  done  for  ages  ! 
Of  Sunday-keeping  in  the  future,  Mrs.  White  says:  "That 
must  be  a  terrible  sin  which  calls  down  the  wrath  of  God 
unmingled  with  mercy."  Great  Controversy,  page  282. 
This  terrible  sin  is  just  what  all  the  church  of  Christ  haa 
practiced  for  ages,  and  yet  have  had  God's  blessing !  Hotv 
absurd. 


104:  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

5.  It  is  attempted  to  dodge  this  point  by  saying  that 
those  of  other  ages  did  not  have  the  light  on  the  Sabbath. 
I  have  shown  the  falsity  of  that  on  other  pages.  Luther, 
Bunyan,  Baxter,  Milton,  all  had  the  "light"  on  the  Sabbath 
question,  and  rejected  it  and  wrote  against  it.  Then  I  can 
do  it,  too,  and  not  have  the  mark  of  the  beast,  if  they 
did  not. 

6.  If  it  is  worshiping  the  beast  to  rest  from  physical 
labor  on  Sunday  after  one  knows  that  Sunday  is  the  Pope's 
Sabbath,  then  many  Seventh-Day  Adventists  are  worship- 
ers of  the  beast.  Why  ?  Because  they  often  rest  on  Sun- 
day. Book  agents,  colporters,  teachers,  drummers,  persona 
visiting  relatives,  ministers  in  new  places,  etc. ,  all  frequently 
rest  on  Sunday,  and  even  go  to  church  all  day  !  Are  they 
worshipers  of  the  beast?  Why  not?  Do  you  say  they 
only  do  it  for  convenience  or  from  policy  ?  Just  so  they  can 
rest  on  Sunday  for  the  same  reason  when  the  law  shall 
require  it,  and  not  worship  the  beast  any  more  than  Advent- 
ists do  now. 

7.  Deny  it  as  they  may,  the  Seventh-Day  Adventist 
teachings  do  make  all  Sunday-keepers,  both  now  and  in  past 
ages,  worshipers  of  the  beast,  having  the  mark  of  the  beast. 
Here  is  proof  in  their  own  words: 

1.  The  Pope  changed  the  Sabbath.  Sunday  is  onl}? 
the  Pope's  day.     See  above. 

2.  ' '  The  mark  of  the  beast  is  the  change  the  beast  made 
in  the  law  of  God,"  in  the  Sabbath.  Marvel  of  Nations, 
page  175.  Then  the  mark  of  the  beast  existed  as  soon  as 
the  change  was  made,  which  they  locate  1500  years  ago.  Is 
not  this  conclusion  inevitable  ?  If  the  mark  of  the  beast  is 
the  change  of  the  Sabbath  which  was  made  by  the  Papacy 
in  the  fourth  century,  then  that  mark  has  existed  ever  since. 
There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion. 

3.  All  who  have  kept  the  law  since  that  date,  as  changed 


THE   rWOHORNED  BEAST  AND   THE  MESSAGES.  lOS 

by  the  beast,  have  been  keeping  the  law  of  the  beast,  not 
the  law  of  God;  have  been  \vorshii)ers  of  the  beast,  not  wor- 
ehipers  of  God.  Here  is  their  own  argument  for  it:  Refer- 
ring to  the  prophesy  that  the  Papacy  should  "change  times 
and  laws,''  Dan.  7:  25,  which  they  claim  the  Pope  fulfilled 
A.  D.  304.  by  changing  the  Sabbath  to  Sunday,  Elder  Smith 
says:  "When  this  is  done  [which  is  1500  years  ago],  what 
do  the  people  of  the  world  have  ?  They  have  two  laws  de- 
manding obedience" — the  law  of  God  and  the  law  of  the 
Pope.  If  they  keep  the  law  of  God,  as  given  by  Him, 
they  worship  and  obey  God.  If  they  keep  the  law  as 
changed  by  the  Papacy,  they  worship  that  power.  *  *  * 
For  instaiice,  if  God  says  that  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sab- 
bath, on  which  we  must  rest,  but  the  Pope  says  that  the  first 
day  is  the  Sabbath,  and  that  we  should  keep  this  day,  and 
not  the  seventh,  then  whoever  observes  that  precept  as  orig- 
inally given  by  God,  is  thereby  distinguished  as  a  worshiper 
of  God;  and  he  who  keeps  it  as  changed  is  thereby  marked 
as  a  follower  of  the  power  that  made  the  change.  *  *  * 
From  this  conclusion  no  candid  mind  can  dissent."  Marvel 
of  Nations,  pages  174  and  175. 

Then,  for  the  past  fifteen  hundred  years,  all  who  have 
kept  Sunday  have  been  "marked"  as  followers  of  the  beast 
and  have  worshiped  him!  From  their  own  argument,  does 
not  this  inevitably  follow  ?  Of  course,  it  does  When  they 
try  to  deny  and  evade  this  abominable  conclusion,  they 
simply  contradict  and  stultify  themselves.  Either  their 
argument  is  a  fallacy,  or  else  this  conclusion  must  follow. 
Look  at  this  hideous  Moloch  which  they  have  set  up  to 
frighten  the  ignorant.  The  Pope  in  the  fourth  century 
changed  the  law  of  God  by  changing  the  Sabbath  to  Sun- 
day. This  change  is  the  mark  of  the  beast;  whoever  after 
that  keeps  that  law  as  thus  changed,  is  keeping  not  the  law 
of  Godo  but  the  Pope's  law;  is  worshiping,  not  God,  but 


106       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

the  Pope.  But  all  Christians  for  fifteen  hundred  years  have 
kept  Sunday,  the  Pope's  Sabbath,  the  mark  of  the  beast, 
and,  as  Smith  says,  were  ^'' thereby  marked  as  followers  of 
the  power  that  made  the  change."  From  this  conclusion 
there  is  no  escape.  And  so  all  Sunday-keepers  have  had 
the  mark  of  the  beast,  and  have  it  now. 

But  they  say  that  they  do  not  teach  that  anyone  as  yet 
has  had  the  mark  of  the  beast.  This  shows  the  absurdity 
of  their  argument.  Sunday-keeping  is  the  mark  of  the  beast, 
yet  Sunday-keepers  have  not  got  the  mark  of  the  beast! 
For  instance:  I  have  a  hundred  counterfeit  bills;  I  pay  them 
out  to  fifty  men  in  Otsego,  and  tney  take  and  keep  them, 
yet  not  a  man  of  them  has  a  counterfeit  bill!  Isn't  that  clear 
— as  mud  ?  But  they  don't  know  that  they  are  counterfeit 
bills,  and  so  are  not  guilty  for  having  them.  But  have  they 
not  got  counterfeit  bills  for  all  that?  Certainly.  So,  if 
Sunday-keeping  is  the  mark  of  the  beast,  then  every  i^an 
that  keeps  Sunday  has  the  mark  of  the  beast,  whether  i/3 
knows  it  or  not.  God  may  not  hold  them  guilty  for  it,  but 
they  have  it  just  the  same.  Now,  as  soon  as  these  fifty  men 
are  informed  that  their  bills  are  counterfeit,  are  they  not 
guilty  if  they  use  them  after  that  ?  Yes.  So,  as  soon  as  a 
man  is  informed  that  Sunday  is  the  mark  of  the  beast,  if  he 
keeps  it  after  that  has  he  not  the  mark  of  the  beast  as  truly 
as  ever  he  can  have  it  ?  And  if  he  still  keeps  Sunday  volun- 
tarily is  he  not  just  as  guilty  before  God  as  though  the  law 
compelled  him  to  keep  it?  Yes,  and  more  so;  because  now 
he  has  no  excuse,  w^hile  then  he  could  plead  that  he  was 
compelled  to  do  it.  So,  then,  it  needs  no  Sunday  law  to 
give  men  the  mark  of  the  beast.  All  Sunday-keepers  have 
it  already,  and  as  soon  as  they  are  informed  that  Sunday  is 
the  mark  of  the  beast,  then  they  are  guilty  as  worshipers 
of  the  beast.  But  Seventh-Day  Adventists  have  already  in- 
formed thousands  upon  this  point.     Then  if  they  have  not 


THE  TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE  MESSAGES.         107 

the  mark  of  the  beast,  why  not  ?  Surely  1  have  been  en- 
lightened on  itj  and  yet  I  keep  Sunday,  the  Pope's  Sabbath, 
the  mark  of  the  beast.  Have  I  the  mark  of  the  beast  ?  Let 
them  answer  if  they  dare.  Remember  that  Luther,  Milton, 
Baxter,  Bunyan  and  Miller  were  all  informed  on  the  Sab- 
bath question,  and  still  wrote  against  it  and  kept  Sunday. 
Reader,  this  Advent  mark  of  the  beast  is  an  absurdity  and 
only  a  scare-crow.     Don't  be  frightened. 

Even  if  the  Pope  did  change  the  Sabbath  to  Sunday,  that 
would  not  make  Sunday  Ms  mark.  The  mark  of  any  person 
was  that  which  he  used  to  mark  things  as  belonging  to  him. 
In  Bible  times  a  master  would  put  his  mark  on  the  right 
hand  or  forehead  of  his  slaves.  Heathen  gods  had  their 
worshipers  marked  so.  This  custom  is  referred  to  and 
used  here  as  an  illustration.  So  the  worshipers  of  the 
beast  would  be  required  to  do  something  which  would  mark 
or  distinguish  them  as  his  followers.  But  keeping  Sunday 
does  not  distinguish  a  Catholic  fi'om  members  of  other 
churches,  for  all  churches  keep  Sunday — the  Greek,  Armen- 
ian, Lutheran,  Episcopal,  Methodist,  etc.  The  Pope  has 
never  used  Sunday  to  distinguish  his  followers  from  others, 
nor  as  proof  of  his  authority  as  head  of  the  church.  He 
does  point  to  the  keys  of  St.  Peter  and  his  regular 
apostolic  succession  from  him  as  proof  of  his  authority. 
Says  Dowling:  "The  Popes  assert  ' their  6?it'm6  right  of 
supremacy  in  consequence  of  their  claiming  to  h^  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostle  Peter."  History  of  Romanism,  page 
44.  On  this,  not  on  Sunday-keeping,  they  base  their  claim 
of  power.  Some  obscure  catechism  is  quoted,  claiming 
authority  for  the  church  to  "command  feasts  and  holy  days," 
because  that  church  has  made  Sunday  holy.  This  falls  in- 
finitely short  of  making  Sunday  the  proof  of  all  their  author- 
ity, the  one  "mark"  of  that  church. 

4.     It  is  absurd  to  say  that  resting  on  Sunday  is  such  « 


108       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

fearful  crime  as  Adventists  affirm.  Hear  Elder  Smith: 
* 'Sunday-keeping  must  be  the  mark  of  the  beast."  "The 
reception  of  his  mark  must  be  something  that  involves  the 
greatest  offense  that  can  be  committed  against  God. "  Marvel 
of  Nations,  pages  170,  183.  So  keeping  Sunday  is  more 
wicked  than  lying,  steahng,  or  even  murder  or  idolatry! 
Such  a  statement  is  monstrous.  In  the  mind  of  any  candid, 
thinking  man,  it  must  break  down  under  the  weight  of  its 
own  absurdity. 

WHAT,   THEN,    IS  THE  MARK   OF  THE   BEAST?' 

Elder  Smith  himself  has  stated  this  as  clearly  as  need  be: 
"It  will  evidently  be  some  act  or  acts  by  which  men  will  be 
required  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  that  image  and 
yield  obedience  to  its  mandates."  "So  the  mark  of  the  beast, 
or  of  the  Papacy,  must  be  some  act  or  profession  by  which 
the  authority  of  that  power  is  acknowledged."  Marvel  of 
Nations,  pages  169,  172.  Exactly;  any  act  or  acts  by  which 
men  show  their  reverence  for  the  beast  or  his  image,  any 
form  of  worship  by  which  they  acknowledge  his  authori*^y, 
that  would  be  worshiping  the  beast  and  his  image  and  re- 
ceiving his  mark.  Dr.  Clarke  says:  "The  Latin  [Catholic] 
worship  is  the  universal  badge  of  distinction  of  the  Latin 
church  from  all  other  churches  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and 
is,  therefore,  the  only  infallible  mark  by  which  a  genuine 
papist  can  be  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  mankind."  On 
Rev.  13:  16.  This  is  the  position  taken  by  Protestants  gen- 
erally, and  I  believe  it  to  be  correct,  A  conformity  to  the 
system  of  worship  set  up  by  the  Papacy,  that  great  anti- 
Christian  power,  the  image  to  the  beast,  would  be  worship- 
ing the  beast  and  his  image  and  receiving  his  mark.  To 
worship  the  beast  is  a  great  crime;  but  is  it  a  crime  to  de- 
vote a  day  to  God,  even  though  the  Bible  has  not  required 
it?    Surely  not,  for  Paul  says:  "He  that  regardeth  the  day, 

^  See  Appeudix  D. 


THE   TWO-HORNED   BEAST  AND   THE   MESSAGES.  109 

regardeth  it  unto  the  Lord."  Rom.  14:  6.  About  doing 
this  he  says:  *'Let  every  man  be  fuIJy  persuaded  in  his  own 
mind,"  Verse  5.  So  we  are  at  liberty  to  regard  Sunday 
unto  the  Lord,  if  we  so  choose.  Hence,  it  cannot  be  a  sin 
as  Adventists  claim,  and  so  cannot  be  the  mark  of  the  beast. 

THE   THREE   MESSAGES,    REV.    14:  6-12. 

The  one  great  claim  of  Seventh-Day  Adventists  is  that 
they  are  preaching  the  three  messages  of  Eev.  14:  6-12. 
This  is  their  constant  theme.  So  the  Mormons  claim  that 
Joe  Smith  preached  this  message.  But  there  is  not  a  parti- 
cle of  foundation  for  the  claim  in  either  case.  Read  the  first 
message,  verses  6,  7.  An  angel  is  seen  preaching  the  gospel 
to  every  nation,  sa;ying:  *'  Fear  God,  and  give  glory  to  him, 
for  the  hour  of  his  judgment  is  come;  and  worship  him  that 
made  heaven,  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  the  fountains  of 
waters."  This  was  fulfilled  by  the  apostles  and  early  Chris- 
tians, as  they  preached  the  gospel  to  all  nations.  Jesus 
said,  *'Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature."  Mark  16:  15.  The  angel  in  Rev.  14:  6,  7, 
is  seen  preaching  the  gospel  to  every  nation,  as  Jesus 
commanded.  Compare  Paul's  sermon  to  the  idolatrous  hea- 
then at  Lystra,  Acts  14:  15,  with  the  words  of  the  first  mes- 
sage. Rev.  14:  7,  and  they  will  be  seen  to  be  almost  identical. 
Said  Paul:  We  '*  preach  unto  you  that  ye  should  turn  from 
these  vanities  unto  the  living  God,  which  made  heaven,  and 
earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  things  that  are  therein."  So  Rev. 
14:  7  says:  "Worship  him  that  made  heaven,  and  earth,  and 
the  sea."  This,  then,  was  a  message  to  idolators,  announc- 
ing to  them  the  living  God  who  made  all  things,  but  of 
whom  they  had  been  ignorant.  This  is  exactly  what  the 
early  church  preached  to  the  heathen  nations  till  idolatry 
was  overthrown. 

Paul  says  the  gospel  "was  preached  to  every  creature 


110  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

which  is  under  heaven,"  Col.  1 :  23.  This  was  before  he 
died,  and  this  exactly  fulfilled  Kev.  14 :  6,  Y.  But  the 
Advent  work  of  1844  was  a  small,  local  affair,  limited  to 
a  few  states ;  much  less  was  it  preached  to  all  nations. 

Adventists  claim  that  Wm.  Miller  preached  this  message 
in  1840-4.  He  did  no  such  thing.  The  burden  of  his 
preaching  was  that  the  end  of  the  world  would  come  in 
1 843  and  then  in  1844.  But  he  preached  what  failed  both 
times,  as  we  know.  Does  God  send  men  to  make  such 
blunders  as  that  ?  Miller  did  not  preach  the  hour  of  judg- 
ment come.  That  was  an  afterthought,  an  interpretation  put 
upon  his  work  which  was  not  thought  of  at  the  time. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  apostles  could  not  have  preached 
this  message,  as  the  judgment  did  not  come  in  their  day. 
Let  us  see.  Jesus  preached  thus:  "AW  is  the  judgment  of 
this  world."  John  12:  31.  Jesus  said,  "Now  is  the  judg- 
ment." Who  will  contradict  him  and  say  it  wasn't  ?  Peter 
said:  "For  the  time  is  come  ih^t  judgment  must  begin  at 
the  house  of  God."  I.  Pet.  4:  17.  Then  the  judgment  did 
begin  there.  Here  are  two  direct  testimonies,  and  that  is 
enough.  So  in  exact  harmony  with  these,  the  First  Angel 
announces,  "The  hour  of  his  judgment  is  come."  Kev.  14:  7. 
If  any  one  wants  to  see  the  truth,  this  is  clear  enough;  if  they 
don't  want  to,  there  is  no  use  arguing  with  them  further. 

SECOND  MESSAGE,  VERSE   8. 

"And  there  followed  another  angel,  saying,  Babylon  is  fall- 
en, is  fallen,  that  great  city,  because  she  made  all  nations  drink 
of  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  her  fornication. "  What  is  Babylon, 
that  great  city  ?  It  is  fully  described  in  Rev.  17  and  18,  and 
is  regarded  by  all  Protestants  as  the  Roman  church.  Advent- 
ists themselves  agree  wdth  this,  though  endeavoring  to  make 
Babylon  also  include  the  Protestant  churches.  Even  with 
their  view  Babylon,  "the  great,"  must  refer  primarily  to 


THE  TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE   MESSAGESo         111 

Rome,  and  only  include  other  fallen  churches  as  a  secondary 
idea,  as  her  daughters.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  claim  that 
this  message  was  preached  by  the  Millerites  in  1844.  When 
the  churches  refused  to  believe  Miller  that  the  end  of  the 
world  would  come  in  1844,  and  that  he  could  tell  the  very 
day,  then  and  for  this  unbelief  all  these  churches  were  rejected 
of  God  and  fell.  Mrs.  White  says:  ''Satan  has  taken  full  pos- 
session of  the  churches  as  a  body.  *  *  «•  Their  profes- 
sion, their  prayers,  and  their  exhortations  are  an  abomination 
in  the  sight  of  God."  Early  Writings,  page  135.  What 
awful  thing  had  they  done  to  fall  so  ?  Why,  Miller  said  the 
world  would  end  in  1844,  and  they  said  it  wouldn't.  He 
was  wrong  and  they  were  right,  but  God  rejected  them  and 
blessed  the  Millerites !  This  is  a  fair  illustration  of  the 
egotism  and  inconsistency  of  the  Adventists.  Did  they 
preach  what  Rev.  14:  8  says  ?  No  !  They  said  Babylon  was 
fallen  hecmise  she  rejected  Millerism,  but  the  message  gives 
a  far  different  reason.  Babylon  fell  '  'because  she  made  all 
nations  drink  of  the  wine  of  her  fornication."  The  Bible 
gives  one  reason,  Adventists  give  another.  Did  the  Prot- 
estant churches  in  America  in  the  short  space  of  about  five 
years,  during  Miller's  preaching,  and  by  simply  rejecting 
his  time-theory — did  they  thus  make  all  nations  drunk? 
The  idea  is  absurd.  This  message  must  have  a  far  deeper 
and  broader  meaning  than  this.  So  they  never  preached  this 
message.  Just  a  few  of  the  churches  in  the  eastern  states 
heard  and  rejected  Millerism;  for  this  all  the  tens  of  mill- 
ions of  church  members  throughout  the  whole  world,  who 
never  even  so  much  as  heard  of  Miller,  were  rejected  of 
God !  What  an  unreasonable  position.  Again,  Babylon 
must  at  least  include  Rome.  Did  the  Catholic  church  fall 
in  1844?  No,  for  she  fell  ages  ago,  as  every  Protestant 
knows.  So,  then,  the  fall  of  Babylon  does  not  mean  what 
Adventists  say,  nor  did  they  preach  what  the  message  says. 


112  SEVENTH-DAY  ABVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

A  thousand  times  more  probable  is  the  application  of  this 
message  to  the  work  of  Luther  and  the  Reformation.  Till 
the  time  of  Luther  the  Papal  church  was  supposed  to  be  the 
true  church,  and  as  such  it  ruled  over  the  kings  of  earth 
and  the  consciences  of  men.  Luther  startled  the  world 
with  the  bold  proclamation  that  the  Roman  church  was  the 
"•  Mother  of  harlots,"  "Babylon  the  great,"  of  Rev.  IT:  1-6, 
and  that  she  was  fallen,  as  stated  in  Rev.  14:  8;  18:  1-4. 
October  6,  1520,  he  published  his  famous  book  on  the 
"Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  Church." 

I  will  quote  from  D'Aubigne's  History  of  the  Reformation, 
Vol.  II.:  "Luther  had  prepared  a  mine,  the  explosion  of 
which  shook  the  edifice  of  Rome  to  its  lowest  foundation. 
This  was  the  publication  of  his  famous  book  on  the  'Baby- 
lonish Captivity  of  the  Church,'  which  appeared  on  the  6th 
of  October,  1520."  Page  130.  In  it  he  said:  "I  know  that 
the  Papacy  is  none  other  than  the  kingdom  of  Babylon." 
Page  131.  "Christians  are  God's  true  people,  led  captive 
to  Babylon. "  Page  133.  '  'All  the  evils  that  afflicted  Christ- 
endom, he  sincerely  ascribed  to  Rome. "  Page  138.  Says  Lu- 
ther: "It  is  true  that  I  have  attacked  the  court  of  Rome;  but 
neither  you  nor  any  man  on  earth  can  deny  that  it  is  more  cor- 
rupt than  Sodom."  Page  139.  "This  Babylon,  which  is  con- 
fusion itself."  "Rome  for  many  years  past  has  inundated 
the  world  with  all  that  could  destroy  both  body  and  soul. 
The  church  of  Rome,  once  the  foremost  in  sanctity,  is  be- 
come the  most  licentious  den  of  robbers,  the  most  shameless 
of  all  brothels,  the  kingdom  of  sin,  of  death,  and  of  hell." 
Page  140. 

Here  was  a  proclamation  of  the  fall  of  Babylon,  which 
was  worthy  of  the  name.  Truly,  Rome  had  made  all  nations 
drunk  with  her  wine.  She  had  ruled  over  all  nations;  had 
become  rich;  had  lived  in  splendor;  had  killed  the  saints; 
had  become  the  habitation  of  every  evil  spirit.     All  this  is 


THE  TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE  MESSAGES.         113 

exactly  portrayed  in  Rev.  17:  1-6,  where  "Babylon  the 
great,"  of  Chapter  14:  8,  is  more  fully  described.  Then  in 
Rev.  18:  1-4  the  announcement  of  the  fall  of  Babylon,  as 
noticed  in  Chapter  14:  8,  is  more  fully  explained,  but  it  is 
the  same  message.     This  fits  Luther's  work  exactly. 

Luther's  message  was  a  mighty  cry,  which  enlightened 
the  earth,  announced  the  fearful  corruptions  of  Rome,  and 
called  out  of  her  millions  of  people,  and  gave  to  the  world 
that  mighty  power.  Protestantism.  In  all  the  history  of  the 
world  such  a  mighty  religious  move  had  never  before  been 
seen.     This  was  worthy  of  a  notice  in  prophecy. 

Consider  this  fact:  While  Adventists  find  hundreds  of 
prophecies,  whole  chapters  of  them,  applying  to  their  little 
work,  they  find  none  foretelling  the  great  rehgious  move- 
ment of  the  Reformation  which  revolutionized  the  world! 
It  illustrates  how  they  interpret  everything  to  fit  them- 
selves. No;  the  second  message  of  Rev.  14:  8,  the  fall  of 
Babylon,  applies  to  the  Catholic  church,  not  to  Protestants, 
and  was  given  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  by  Luther, 
not  by  the  Millerites  in  1844. 

THE   THIRD   MESSAGE,    REV.    14:    9-12. 

This  warning  against  the  worship  of  the  beast  and  his 
image,  and  his  mark,  has  been  given  by  all  the  Protestant 
churches  for  the  last  three  hundred  years.  Look  at  the 
multitude  of  books  against  popery  and  the  corruptions  of 
Catholicism.  From  press  and  pulpit  has  been  thundered 
one  continual  warning  against  apostate  Rome.  Never  was 
a  prophecy  more  plainly  fulfilled  than  this. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  say  that  they  are  giving  this 
message.     Never  was  a  claim  more  absurd. 

1.  They  are  mistaken  entirely  as  to  what  the  beast, 
image,  and  mark  are,  as  I  have  shown. 

2.  According  to  their  own  showingj   they  have  bee^ 


114  SEVErXH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

preaching  for  seventy  years  against  a  thing  which  does  not 
exist — the  image,  which  they  say  is  yet  to  be  made! 

3.  That  part  of  the  message  about  the  torment  of  the 
wicked,  their  smoke  going  up  for  ever  and  ever,  etc.,  they 
never  preach,  for  it  is  just  what  they  don't  believe. 

4.  Their  egotistical  claim  that  they  are  the  only  ones 
who  ''keep  the  commandments  of  God,"  is  shown  to  be^alse 
in  Chapter  XX. 

5.  There  are  six  angels  mentioned  in  Kev.  14.  If  the 
first  three  represent  messages  of  warning,  then  the  other 
three  do  also;  and,  hence,  there  are  yet  three  messages  more 
to  come  after  the  Third  Angel's  message!  What  do  Ad- 
ventists  have  to  say  about  these  ?     Nothing. 

These  few  brief  points  are  sufficient  to  show  that  their 
application  of  the  three  messages  is  entirely  wrong. 

IS  THE   SABBATH   GOD'S  SEAL? 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  claim  that  "the  seal  of  God  ih 
\iis  Holy  Sabbath."  Thoughts  on  Revelation,  page  452. 
They  are  now  sent  to  "seal"  the  144,000  of  Rev.  7:  1-8 
ready  for  translation.  Not  a  soul  living  on  earth  when 
Jesus  comes  will  be  saved,  unless  he  is  thus  sealed  by  keep- 
ing that  day.     Early  Writings,  page  11. 

1.  Does  the  Bible  say  that  the  Sabbath  is  the  seal  of 
God  ?  No;  this  is  another  Adventist  assumption  which  they 
claim  to  prove  by  a  long,  round-about,  far-fetched  set  of 
inferences.  It  takes  one  of  their  ablest  speakers  an  hour  to 
make  it  appear  even  plausible  when  he  has  no  opposition. 
Even  then  few  can  see  through  it. 

2.  The  word  "seal,"  as  a  noun  and  a  verb,  is  used  sixty- 
five  times  in  the  Bible,  but  not  once  is  it  said  to  be  the 
Sabbath. 

8.  They  argue  that  sign  and  seal  are  synonymous  terms, 
meaning  the  same  thing;  and  as>  the  Sabbath  is  called  a 


THE   TWO-HORNED  BEAST  AND  THE  MESSAGES.         115 

sign  (Ex.  31:  17),  it  is  therefore  a  seal.  To  this  I  object, 
because  (1)  Seal  is  nevei  defined  by  the  word  sign^  nor  sign 
\iy  the  word  seal;  nor  is  one  term  ever  given  as  the  synonym 
for  the  other.  I  have  carefully  examined  fourteen  difierent 
dictionaries,  lexicons  and  cyclopedias,  and  find  no  exception 
to  this  statement.  (2)  The  original  term  for  seal  (Hebrew, 
chotJiam;  Greek,  sjphragis)  is  never  rendered  sign.  (3)  The 
original  word  for  sign  (Hebrew,  otli;  Greek,  semeion)  is 
never  rendered  seal.  Hence  they  are  not  synonymous 
terms. 

4.  Rom.  4:  11  is  used  to  prove  that  a  sign  is  a  seal;  but 
it  does  not  prove  it.  Anything  may  be  put  to  two  entirely 
difierent  uses,  as  I  may  use  my  cane  for  a  stafl'  or  for  a 
pointer,  but  is  therefore  a  stafi*  and  a  pointer  the  same  ?  No. 
So  in  Rom.  4:  11,  circumcision  w^as  used  as  a  sign  and  also 
as  a  seal;  but  this  does  not  prove  that  a  sign  is  a  seal.  So 
the  Sabbath  is  a  sign.  Ex.  31:  IT.  Possibly  God  might 
also  use  it  as  a  seal,  but  does  he  ?  Where  is  the  proof  ? 
Nowhere. 

5.  The  Sabbath  was  a  sign  between  God  and  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel.  Ex.  31:  17.  So  was  circumcision.  Rom. 
4:  11.     But  neither  is  a  sign  to  Christians. 

6.  The  Sabbath  was  abolished  at  the  cross.  Col.  2:  16. 
Hence  it  cannot  be  God's  seal  now. 

7.  If  the  Sabbath  is  God's  seal  with  which  he  seals  his 
people  for  translation,  then  every  one  who  has  the  Sabbath 
is  sealed  and  ready  for  translation.  When  God  puts  his 
seal  upon  a  man,  that  must  settle  it  that  he  is  God's.  So  in 
Rev.  7:  2-4,  where  the  angel  sealed  a  man  with  the  seal  of 
God,  did  he  not  thereby  become  one  of  the  144,000  who 
were  ^'without  fault?"  Rev.  14:  1-5.  Yes.  Then,  if  the 
Sabbath  is  the  seal,  all  who  keep  it  are  sealed  and  ready  for 
Heaven.  But  (1)  the  old  Pharisees  all  kept  the  Sabbath 
strictly;  (2)  millions  of  Jews  keep  it  now;  (3)  all  Seventh- 


116  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  IlENOU^>CED. 

Day  Baptists  keep  it;  (4)  the  Marion  party,  who  bitterly 
oppose  Seventh-Day  Adventists,  all  keep  it;  (5)  many 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  keep  it  who  have  been  expelled 
from  their  churches  for  their  sins.  Are  all  these  sealed  and 
ready  for  salvation  ?  No.  Then  the  Sabbath  as  a  seal,  as 
the  proof  of  God's  favor,  as  a  test  of  character  and  fitness 
for  Heaven,  fails  entirely.     Hence,  it  cannot  be  God's  seal. 

What,  then,  is  God's  seal  ?  It  is  plainly  stated  to  be  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Thus:  "Who  hath  also  sealed  us,  and  given 
the  earnest  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts."  11.  Cor.  1:  22. 
"In  whom  also,  after  that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with 
that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."  Eph.  1:  13.  "And  grieve 
not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  ye  are  sealed  unto  the 
day  of  redemption."  Eph.  4:  30.  These  texts  are  plain 
enough  as  to  what  the  seal  of  the  Lord  is.  It  is  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Strange  that  men  will  set  aside  these  plain  texts, 
and  try  by  long,  uncertain  arguments  to  make  out  that  the 
old  Jewish  Sabbath  is  the  seal,  when  the  Bible  never  says  a 
word  about  it. 

Adventists  argue  that  the  Sabbath  is  the  seal  to  the  deca- 
logue. They  say  there  is  nothing  else  in  the  Ten  Command- 
ments to  tell  who  gave  that  law.  The  assertion  is  utterly 
false.  The  very  first  words  of  the  decalogue  tell  who  gave 
it:  "I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  brought  thee  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage.  Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  before  me."  Ex.  20:  2,  3.  This  tells 
as  plainly  as  possible  who  gave  that  law,  and  cuts  up  by  the 
roots  the  Advent  argument  on  the  seal.  Now  look  at 
their  "  Law  of  God  "  chart.  These  words  as  God  put 
them  are  left  off !  If  left  on  they  would  clearly  contra- 
dict the  Advent  argument. 


CHAPTER  VDL 

THE  SANCTUARY. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  make  everything  turn  upon  theit 
view  of  the  sanctuary.  It  is  vital  with  them.  If  they  are 
wrong  on  this,  their  whole  theory  breaks  down.  The 
reader  should,  therefore,  study  this  subject  carefully.  They 
dwell  upon  it  constantly,  and  affirm  that  they  are  the  only 
ones  in  all  Christendom  who  have  the  light  on  the  subject. 
I  will  devote  only  a  few  pages  to  it,  just  enough  to  show  the 
fallacy  of  their  system. 

They  based  their  time  of  1844  upon  Dan.  8:  14.  *'Unto 
two  thousand  and  three  hundred  days,  then  shall  the  sanc- 
tuary be  cleansed."  The  sanctuary  was  the  earth.  It  was 
to  be  cleansed  by  fire  at  the  second  advent.  The  2300  days 
ended  in  1844.  Hence,  Christ  must  come  that  year.  They 
proved  it  all  by  the  Bible;  so  there  could  be  no  mistake, 
they  said.  But  Christ  didn't  come.  Now  what  ?  Fanaticism 
dies  hard,  positive  men  don't  like  to  yield.  So  they  now 
find  that  the  sanctuary  does  not  mean  the  earth  at  all,  as 
they  had  said,  but  a  real  building  in  heaven,  just  like  the 
tabernacle  which  Moses  built.  That  was  a  tent  with  two 
rooms,  the  holy  place,  containing  the  table,  candlestick,  and 
golden  altar;  the  Most  Holy,  containing  the  ark,  in  which 
were  the  tables  of  stone,  and  over  which  was  the  mercy  seat 
and  cherubim.  See  Heb.  9:  1-7.  The  priests  ministered 
in  the  first  place  every  day  in  the  year,  but  only  the  high 
priest  went  into  the  Most  Holy,  and  he  only  on  the  last  day 
of  the  year.  Lev.  16.  On  that  day  he  cleansed  the  sanctu- 
ary of  the  sins  confessed  there  during  the  year.     All  this 

CUT) 


118  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

was  a  type  of  just  such  a  building  in  heaven,  where  Christ 
ministers.  Heb.  8:1-5;  9: 1-9,  24.  In  1844  he  left  the  first 
place  and  entered  the  Most  Holy  to  cleanse  the  heavenly 
sanctuary,  which,  really,  is  the  judgment.  This  explains 
their  disappointment.  Jesus  went  into  the  Most  Holy  of 
the  heavenly  sanctuary  to  begin  the  judgment  in  1844,  in- 
stead of  coming  to  the  earth,  as  they  first  expected  and 
preached!  To  prove  all  this  they  make  long,  inferential 
arguments,  which  are  open  to  objections  from  all  sides. 

1.  Do  the  Adventists  Icnow  that  they  are  right  about  this 
question  ?    No. 

2.  If  this  subject  is  as  plain  and  as  important  as  they  say 
it  is,  it  is  strange  that  nobody  ever  found  it  out  before. 

3.  After  being  perfectly  familiar  with  their  view  of  it, 
and  knowing  all  their  arguments,  I  feel  sure  they  are  mis- 
taken about  it. 

1.  God  sent  the  Adventists  with  a  last  solemn  message 
to  earth  upon  which  the  destiny  of  the  church  and  the  world 
depended.  The  very  first  thing  they  did  was  to  get  the 
wrong  year,  '43  instead  of  '44.  Then,  when  they  got  that 
fixed  up,  instead  of  announcing  the  real  event  to  take  place, 
the  change  in  Christ's  work  in  the  sanctuary  in  heaven,  they 
said  he  was  to  come  to  earth,  raise  the  dead,  and  burn  the 
world,  when  nothing  of  the  kind  was  to  occur  ! 

2.  Not  one  in  fifty  of  the  original  Adventists  ever  found 
out  the  real  mistake  they  had  made.  Not  even  one  of  the 
leading  Adventists,  like  Miller,  Himes,  Litch,  etc.,  ever 
accepted  this  sanctuary  explanation.  Only  a  mere  handful 
out  of  the  great  mass  of  1844  Adventists  found  out  the 
truth  about  the  sanctuary,  and  these  were  men  of  no  note 
in  Miller's  work. 

3.  Miller  himself  opposed  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists' 
move,  rejecting  the  idea  of  the  sanctuary,  the  Sabbath,  and 
the  third  angel's  message.     What  a  hopeless  tangle  that 


THE   SANCTUARY.  119 

Advent  work  was  !  No  wonder  people  rejected  it.  What 
if  Moses  had  opposed  Joshua,  and  John  the  Baptist  had 
opposed  Christ?  Miller  was  sent  to  do  a  work,  got  it 
wrong,  and  then  opposed  those  who  did  finally  get  it  right ! 

4.  Instead  of  receiving  the  "light"  on  the  sanctuary 
question  from  Mrs.  White's  visions,  or  from  heaven,  they 
got  it  from  O.  R.  L.  Crosier.  But  he  soon  gave  it  all  u[) 
as  an  error,  and  has  opposed  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
for  many  years.  It  looks  badly  for  a  theory  when  its  very 
authors  renounce  it. 

5.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  at  first  adopted  the  sanctuary 
theory  to  prove  that  the  door  of  mercy  was  shut  in  1844,  a 
theory  which  Mrs.  White  and  all  of  them  held  at  that  time. 
Here  is  my  proof  on  this  point: 

Ann  Arbor,  Mich.,  Dec.  1,  1887. 
Elder  D.  M.  Canright: — "I  kept  the  seventh  day  nearly 
a  year,  about  1848.  In  1846,  I  explained  the  idea  of  the 
sanctuary  in  an  article  in  an  extra  double  number  of  the 
Day  Star,  Cincinnati,  O.  The  object  of  that  article  was  to 
support  the  theory  that  the  door  of  mercy  was  shut,  a  theory 
which  I  and  nearly  all  Adventists  who  had  adopted  William 
Miller's  views,  held  from  1844  to  1848.  Yes,  I  know  that 
Ellen  G.  Harmon — now  Mrs.  White — held  the  shut  door 
theory  at  that  time." 

Truly  yours,  O.  R.  L.  Crosier. 

Now  listen  to  Mrs.  White:  "Topsham,  Me.,  April  21, 
1847.  *  *  *  The  Lord  showed  me  in  vision  more  than 
one  year  ago,  that  Brother  Crosier  had  the  true  light  on  the 
cleansing  of  the  sanctuary,  etc. ,  and  that  it  was  his  will  that 
Bro.  C.  should  write  out  the  view  which  he  gave  us  in  the 
Day  Star  (extra),  Feb.  7,  1846.  I  feel  fully  authorized  by 
the  Lord  to  recommend  that  extra  to  every  saint.  *  *  *" 
E.  a  White,  in  <'A  Word  to  the  Little  Flock,"  pages  11, 


120  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

12.  Here  you  have  the  origin  and  object  of  that  sanctuary 
theory.  Before  me  lies  "  The  Present  Truth,"  Vol.  I,  No.  6, 
December,  1849,  by  James  White.  ''The  Shut  Door  Ex- 
plained," is  the  leading  article,  in  which  it  is  argued  from 
the  type  Lev.  16:  IT,  that  when  the  high  priest  entered  the 
Most  Holy  there  could  be  no  more  pardon  for  sin.  *'0n 
this  day  of  atonement  he  is  a  high  priest  for  those  only 
whose  names  are  inscribed  on  the  breast-plate  of  judgment," 
page  44.  No  more  salvation  for  sinners,  is  what  their  sanc- 
tuary theory  was  then  used  to  prove.  The  whole  volume  is 
full  of  this  idea. 

6.  Their  argument  from  the  type  on  this  point  was  right; 
in  the  type  no  sin  could  be  confessed  and  conveyed  into  the 
sanctuary  after  the  high  priest  entered  the  Most  Holy.  Lev. 
4:  1-7;  16:  17,  23,  24.  So  if  this  was  a  type  of  the  entrance 
of  Christ  into  the  Most  Holy  m  heaven  in  1844,  then  truly  the 
door  of  mercy  did  close  there,  and  all  sinners  since  are  lost. 

7.  No  work  whatever  was  to  be  done  on  the  day  of 
atonement,  or  day  when  the  sanctuary  was  cleansed.  Lev. 
23:  27-32.  The  law  was  very  strict.  If  the  Advent  argu- 
ment on  the  sanctuary  is  correct  and  the  day  of  atonement 
began  in  1844,  then  they  ought  not  to  have  worked  a  day 
since.  Hence,  many  Adventists  after  1844  held  that  it  was 
a  sin  to  work;  but  time  starved  them  out,  and  they  had  to 
go  at  it  again. 

8.  Finally,  being  compelled  to  abandon  the  position  that 
the  door  of  mercy  was  entirely  shut  against  sinners  in  1844, 
they  next  taught  that  only  those  could  be  saved  who  knew 
of  the  change  which  Christ  made  in  the  sanctuary  in  Heaven 
in  1844.  Thus  Elder  Smith,  in  ''Objections  to  the  Visions 
Answered,"  pages  24-26,  says:  "A  knowledge  of  Christ's 
position  and  work  is  necessary  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  ben- 
efits of  his  mediation.  *  *  *  A  general  idea  of  his 
work  was  then  (previous  to  1844)  sufficient  to  enable  men 


THE   SANCTUARY.  121 

to  approach  unto  God  by  him.  *  ^  *  But  when  ho 
changed  his  position  (in  1844)  to  the  most  Holy  place  *  *  * 
that  knowledge  of  his  work  which  had  up  to  that  point  been 
sufficient,  was  no  longer  sufficient.  -^  -J?-  *  Who  can  find 
salvation  now  ?  Those  who  go  to  the  Saviour  where  he  is 
and  view  him  by  faith  in  the  most  Holy  place.  *  *  *  This 
is  the  door  now  open  for  salvation.  But  no  man  can  under- 
stand this  change  without  definite  knowledge  of  the  subject 
of  the  sanctuary  and  the  relation  of  type  and  anti-type. 
Now  they  may  seek  the  Saviour  as  they  have  before  sought 
him,  with  no  other  ideas  of  his  position  and  ministry  than 
those  which  they  entertained  while  he  was  in  the  first  apart- 
ment; but  will  it  avail  them?  They  cannot  find  him  there. 
That  door  is  shut!"  So  Mrs.  White:  "They  have  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  move  made  in  Heaven,  or  the  way  into  the  most 
Holy,  and  they  cannot  be  benefited  by  the  intercession  of 
Jesus  there.  *  *  *  They  ofier  up  their  useless  prayers 
to  the  apartment  which  Jesus  has  left."  Spiritual  Gifts, 
Vol.  I,  pages  171,  172.  What  abominable  doctrine!  No 
one  can  be  saved  unless  they  know  of  the  change  which 
Christ  made  in  Heaven  in  1844.  But  no  one  except  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  has  the  slightest  idea  of  that  change. 
Reader,  think  of  this. 

9.  But  now  they  have  abandoned  this  view  of  the  sanct- 
uary and  hold  that  all  who  honestly  seek  God  may  be  saved 
without  any  of  this  "light"  on  the  sanctuary.  Thus  they 
have  already  held  four  difierent  positions  upon  the  sanctuary 
question:  1.  It  was  the  earth.  2.  The  door  of  mercy  was 
shut  to  all  sinners  in  1844.  3.  It  was  open  only  to  those 
who  learned  about  Christ's  change  in  1844.  4.  It  is  now 
open  to  all.     What  will  they  hold  next  ? 

After  thoroughly  investigating  the  whole  subject  of  the 
sanctuary,  I  feel  sure  that  they  are  in  a  great  error  on  that 
point 


12^       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

1.  God's  throne  was  always  in  the  most  Holy  place  ol 
the  sanctuary,  between  the  cherubim,  over  the  ark,  nevei 
once  in  the  Holy  place.  For  proof  on  this  point  see  Lev. 
16:  2;  Num.  7:  89;  I.  Sam.  4:  4;  II.  Kings  19:  15.  Smith 
argues  that  God's  throne  was  sometimes  in  the  holy  place, 
and  refers  to  Ex.  33:  9.  But  here  the  Lord  appeared  out- 
side the  tabernacle,  and  not  in  the  Holy  place  at  all.  So  his 
text  fails  him. 

2.  When  Jesus  ascended  to  Heaven,  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago,  he  went  directly  to  the  right  hand  of  God  and  sat 
down  on  his  throne.  Heb.  8:  1.  Hence,  he  must  have 
entered  the  most  Holy  then,  instead  of  in  1844. 

3.  ' 'Within  the  vail"  is  in  the  most  Holy  place.  "And 
thou  shalt  hang  up  the  vail  under  the  taches,  that  thou  may- 
est  bring  in  thither  within  the  vail  the  ark  of  the  testimony: 
and  the  vail  shall  divide  unto  you  between  the  YloXy  place 
and  the  most  Holy."  Ex.  26:  33.  Also  see  Lev.  16:  2, 
12,  13. 

None  can  fail  to  see  that  ''within  the  vail"  is  in  the  most 
Holy  place  where  the  ark  was.  This  is  just  where  Jesus 
went  eighteen  hundred  years  ago.  Proof:  "Which  hope 
we  have  as  an  anchor  of  the  soul,  both  sure  and  steadfast, 
and  which  entereth  into  that  within  the  vail;  whither  the 
forerunner  is  for  us  entered,  even  Jesus  made  a  high  priest 
for  ever."  Heb.  6:  19,  20.  As  the  high  priest  went  "with- 
in the  vail,"  so  Jesus,  our  high -priest,  went  "within  the 
vail,"  into  the  most  Holy  place,  to  the  right  hand  of  God 
and  sat  down  on  his  throne.  Nothing  could  be  more  plainly 
seated.  This  upsets  the  whole  Advent  theory  of  1844.  For 
further  proof  see  Ex.  27:  21;  30:  6;  40:  22-26;  Lev.  4:  6,  17; 
16:  15;  24:  3;  Num.  18:  7;  Matt.  27:  51. 

4.  "Before  the  throne,"  Eev.  8:  3.  Elder  Smith  asserts 
that  "the  throne  of  God  was  in  the  first  apartment  of  the 
sanctuary,"  because  it  is  said  that  the  seven  lamps  and  the 


THE  SANCTUARY.  123 

golden  altar  were  "before  the  throne,"  Rev.  4:  5;  8:  3.  It 
is  a  desperate  cause  which  seizes  upon  such  proof.  The 
same  argument  would  prove  that  the  ark  and  God's  throne 
were  always  in  the  first  apartment  of  the  earthly  sanctuary, 
which  we  know  to  be  false.  As  there  was  only  a  vail  which 
divided  the  holy  from  the  most  holy,  where  God's  throne 
was,  things  in  the  holy  place  were  said  to  be  ''before  the 
Lord,"  as  they  were  so  near  to  the  throne,  which  was  just 
behind  the  curtain.  Proof:  Ex.  27:  20,  21;  30:  6-8;  40: 
23-25;  Lev.  4:  6,  15-18.  Even  outside  of  the  tabernacle 
entirely,  where  the  beasts  were  killed,  was  "before  the 
Lord,"  as  Lev.  4:  15  shows.  Abraham  walked  "before  the 
Lord,"  Gen.  24:  40,  yet  he  was  on  earth,  and  the  Lord  was 
in  heaven. 

5.  Not  a  single  text  can  be  found  in  all  the  Bible  where 
the  ark  and  cherubim  and  throne  were  in  the  holy  place  of 
the  earthly  sanctuary,  the  type;  yet  in  the  antitype  they 
have  the  throne  of  God  in  the  holy  place,  not  on  some  spe- 
cial occasion,  but  all  the  time  for  1800  years,  just  contrary 
to  the  type ! 

6.  Adventists  always  assume  and  say  that  "the  temple 
of  God  is  the  most  Holy  place."  Sanctuary,  page  234,  by 
U.  Smith.  But  this  is  false.  The  most  Holy  place,  or  the 
oracle,  was  a  rooin  in  the  temjple^  but  it  was  not  the  temple 
itself.  In  fact  the  Scriptures  carefully  distinguish  between 
the  temple  and  the  oracle  or  most  Holy.  See  I.  Kings 
6:  5,  16,  IT,  19,  23;  Y:  50.  The  temple  was  the  house,  the 
whole  building.  I.  Kings  7:  50;  H.  Kings  11:  13;  I.  Sam. 
3:  3;  Matt.  21:  12;   Luke  1:  9;   Rev.  11:  19. 

7.  When  was  the  temple  in  heaven  opened,  Rev.  11: 19  ? 
Adventists  use  this  text  to  prove  that  the  most  holy  place  in 
the  heavenly  sanctuary  was  not  opened  till  1844.  But  it 
fails  them:  1.  Because,  as  we  have  proved  above,  the  tem- 
ple is  not  the  most  holy  place,  but  the  whole  building.    2. 


124  SEVENTH-DAT  >DVENTI8M  RENOUNCED. 

Because  the  heavenly  temple  was  opened  when  Christ  began 
his  ministry  there,  1800  years  ago.  Heb.  8:  1,  2;  9:  8-12. 
3.  Because  verse  19  of  Rev.  11  properly  belongs  with  Rev. 
12,  and  begins  that  new  line  of  prophecy,  instead  of  closing 
the  line  in  Chapter  11.  The  Syriac  thus  divides  it.  Clarke, 
Barnes,  Scott,  and  every  commentator  I  have  consulted, 
connects  this  verse  with  Chapter  12  as  the  introduction. 
Says  Scott:  "V.  19. — This  verse  introduces  a  new  subject, 
and  should  have  been  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  next 
chapter.''  Certainly;  for  when  was  the  temple  in  heaven 
opened  ?  When  Jesus  went  there  to  begin  his  ministry,  of 
course,  Heb.  9:  8-12.  Thus  fails  the  main  pillar  of  the  Ad- 
ven lists'  sanctuary  theory. 

Thus  far  I  have  argued  on  their  own  grounds  that  there  is 
a  real  building  up  in  heaven,  just  like  the  sanctuary  on 
earth.     But  that  whole  thing  is  extremely  questionable. 

1.  As  children  are  taught  moral  truths  by  object  lessons, 
so  God  taught  the  Jews  spiritual  truths  by  the  object  les- 
sons of  the  types  of  their  worship.  Hence,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  in  Christian  worship  there  must  be  just  such  material 
things  used  up  in  heaven.  Rather  the  presumption  is 
against  it. 

2.  The  whole  temple  service  was  for  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood; but  Christ  is  not  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Aaron, 
but  is  after  that  of  Melchisedic,  Heb.  7:  11.  Melchisedic 
had  no  temple  nor  temple  service,  so  Christ  should  have 
none.  From  Adam  till  Moses  there  was  no  temple  nor 
priestly  service  in  heaven.  Smith  admits  this.  ' '  There 
were  no  holy  places  laid  open,  and  no  priestly  work  was 
established  in  heaven."  Sanctuary,  page  238.  Exactly; 
for  that  was  under  the  Melchisedic  priesthood,  just  as  now. 
If  no  temple  was  needed  there  for  4000  years,  none  is  needed 
there  now. 

3.  Paul  directly  states  that  the  typf  s  gf  the  law  were 


THE  SANCTUARY.  125 

"  NOT  the  very  image  of  the  things"  they  represent,  Heb. 
10:  1.  But  Adventists  make  their  argument  on  the  assump- 
tion that  they  were  exact  images  of  things  in  heaven,  thus 
ignoring  Paul's  statement. 

4.  Paul  says  that  Chiist  is  a  minister  of  a  greater  and 
more  perfect  tabernacle,  Heb.  9:  11.  Then  it  must  difler 
from  the  earthly  one. 

6.  Paul  says  it  is  one  '-not  made  with  hands,"  Heb.  9:11. 
This  shows  that  it  is  not  a  material  building. 

6.  Paul  says  that  Jesus'  flesh  is  the  vail,  Heb.  10:  20. 
This  shows  that  the  temple  was  only  figurative. 

7.  Scarcely  one  of  the  types  had  an  antitype  just  like  it. 
Thus  lambs  and  oxen  were  the  type  of  which  Jesus  was  the 
antitype.  But  he  was  a  Tnan  and  they  were  heasts.  The 
bodies  of  those  beasts  were  hurned^  Heb.  13:  11,  12,  but 
Christ,  the  antitype,  was  not  burned.  They  were  slain  at  the 
door  of  the  sanctuary.  Lev.  17:  3,  4,  but  Jesus  was  not  slain 
jX  the  door  of  any  sanctuary.  Their  blood  was  carried  into 
the  temple  and  put  on  the  altar.  Lev.  4:  6,  7,  but  the  blood 
of  Christ  was  spilt  on  the  ground.  The  Levitical  priests 
made  offerings  daily,  but  Christ  only  once  for  all,  Heb.  9: 
25,  26,  28;  10:  10,  12,  14.  * 'Elder  Smith  says:  'The  fact 
that  Moses  made  two  apartments  in  his  likeness  of  the  heav- 
enly temple  is  a  demonstration  that  the  latter  has  two  apart- 
ments also.'  Again:  'The  Priests  here  on  earth,  in  both 
apartments,  served  unto  the  example  of  a  like  service  in 
heaven.  Now  Jesus  is  the  only  priest  in  heaven,  and  he 
must  pel-form  this  'like  service.'  The  earthly  priests  offered, 
every  day,  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice,  sprinkling  the 
blood  of  fresh-slain  victims  in  the  outer  sanctuary.  So  for 
more  than  eighteen  hundred  years,  Jesus,  according  to  Mr. 
Smith,  must  have  offered  his  own  fresh-shed  blood  in  the 
outer  apartment  of  the  heavenly  sanctuary  twice  every  day; 
that  is  more  than  thirteen  hundred  thousand  times  from  his 


126  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

ascension  to  1844.  This  is  the  logical  result  of  Mr.  Smith's 
'demonstration.'  The  apostle  says,  Heb.  7:  27:  'This  he 
did  once  for  all,  when  he  offered  up  himself.'  Thus  the 
'  demonstration'  flatly  contradicts  the  scriptures."  G.  W. 
Morton.  The  law  regulating  the  service  of  the  priests  and 
the  temple  was  changed,  Heb.  7:  12.  Then  certainly  it  is 
not  carried  out  in  heaven  now.  Adventists  would  have  the 
whole  Levitical  law  of  the  sanctuary  service  transferred  to 
heaven  and  carried  out  there  !  This  is  the  absurdity  of  their 
system.  In  Heb.  7:  11-28  Paul  marks  many  points  of  dif- 
ference between  the  types  and  the  antitypes.  The  table  of 
the  Lord  was  in  the  temple  in  the  Jewish  age,  Mai.  1:  7,  but 
now  the  Lord's  table  is  in  the  church,  I.  Cor.  10:  21;  11:  20. 
The  seven  lamps  in  the  temple  of  heaven  "are  the  seven 
spirits  of  God,"  Rev.  4:5.  Then  they  are  not  literal  lamps. 
So  it  is  more  than  probable  that  none  of  the  things  mentioned 
as  being  there  are  literal.  In  one  place  it  is  said  that  the 
saints  in  heaven  are  "clothed  in  white  robes,"  Rev.  7:  9,  but 
in  another  place  this  is  explained  to  be  the  righteousness  of 
saints,  Rev.  19:  8. 

In  Rev.  8:  3  it  is  said  that  the  prayers  of  all  saints  are 
offered  upon  the  golden  altar.  Most  evidently  this  is  not  to 
be  taken  literally,  but  only  as  a  reference  to  the  Jewish  mode 
of  worship.  Col.  2:  16,  17,  says  that  the  meats,  drinks, 
feast  days,  new  moons  and  Sabbath  days  were  a  shadow  of 
Christ.  Reasoning  as  the  Adventists  do  about  the  earthly 
sanctuary,  Heb.  8:  5,  we  would  expect  to  And  something  in 
the  gospel  exactly  like  them,  meats,  drinks,  yearly  feast 
days,  monthly  holy  days,  etc.  But  where  are  they  ?  In  the 
gospel  there  is  nothing  at  all  just  like  these  types. 

Paul  says  directly  that  the  place  into  which  Jesus  went  was 
"  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us," 
Heb.  9:  24.  The  simple  truth  of  the  whole  matter  is  that 
the  age  of  types,  object  lessons,  exact  forms,  set  ceremonies, 


THE  SANCTUARY.  127 

consecrated  places  and  holy  vessels — all  this  ended  at  the 
cross,  Col.  2:  17.  The  answer  of  Jesus  to  the  woman  at  the 
well  is  exactly  to  the  point.  She  said:  "Our  fathers  wor- 
shiped in  this  mountain;  and  ye  say  that  in  Jerusalem  is  the 
place  w^here  men  ought  to  worship.  Jesus  saith  unto  her, 
Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour  cometh,  w^hen  ye  shall  neither 
in  this  mountain,  nor  yet  at  Jerusalem,  worship  the  Father. 
*  *  *  But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  true 
worshipers  shall  w^orship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth: 
for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  w^orship  him.  God  is  a  spirit; 
and  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in 
truth."  John  4:  20-24.  Under  the  gospel  one  place  is  no 
more  holy  than  another.  With  the  holy  places  went  all  the 
holy  vessels,  sacrifices,  incense,  tables  of  stone,  and  all. 
Peter  states  it  all  in  a  w^ord:  *'Ye  also,  as  lively  stones,  are 
built  up  a  spiritual  house,  an  holy  priesthood,  to  ofier  up 
spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ." 
r.  Pet.  2:  5.  To  the  same  efiect,  Eph.  2:  20-22;  I.  Cor.  6: 
19.  Now  w^e  are  under  a  new  covenant;  Heb.  8:  6-13,  an 
high  priest  of  a  new  order,  Heb.  7:  11,  we  come  to  God  by 
a  new  w^ay,  Heb.  10:  20,  by  new  ordinances,  Mark  15: 15-16; 
I.  Cor.  11:  23-26,  by  a  difierent  temple,  and  a  better  sacri- 
fice. Hence,  there  is  no  need  of  a  temple  in  heaven  just  like 
the  old  Jewish  one. 

The  Adventists  idea  of  the  sanctuary  in  heaven  is  an  ab- 
surdity. In  Early  Writings,  pages  114,  115,  Mrs.  White 
was  taken  to  heaven  and  shown  all  about  it.  She  saw  the 
building  exactly  like  the  one  on  earth.  In  it  w^as  the  candle- 
stick, the  table  of  show-bread,  the  altar,  the  curtains,  the 
ark;  and  "in  the  ark  were  tables  of  stone  containing  the 
Ten  Commandments."  Think,  now;  what  use  for  a  literal 
candle  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God  whose  glory  is 
above  the  light  of  the  sun.  "They  need  no  candle,  neither 
light  of  the  sun,  for  the  Lord  God  giveth  them  light."    Rev. 


128       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

22:  5.  And  what  use  for  a  literal  table  of  show-bread  there? 
Do  the  angels  or  the  Lord  eat  the  bread  ?  Then  real  tables 
of  stone  in  Heaven!  and  the  Lord  sitting  on  the  ark  over 
them!  What  puerile  ideas.  Hear  Paul  veto  that  idea: 
''Not  in  tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshy  tables  of  the  heart." 
IL  Cor.  3:  3.  Then  think  of  the  absurdity  of  having  the 
Almighty  God  and  all  the  "ten  thousand  times  ten  thou- 
sand" (one  hundred  million)  angels  around  his  throne,  dwell- 
ing  in  a  literal  building  with  curtains,  lamps,  tables,  walls, 
etc.  It  would  need  to  be  larger  than  a  whole  State.  Let 
Adventists  read  this:  "Howbeit,  the  Most  High  dwelleth 
not  in  temples  made  with  hands."     Acts  7:  48. 

'  'But  does  not  Paul  say  that  the  Jewish  temple  was  a 
shadow,  figure,  a  pattern  of  heavenly  things,  Heb.  8  and  9  ?" 
Yes;  and  so  he  says  the  ofierings  and  holy  days  of  the  old 
covenant  were  shadows  of  Christ,  Col.  2:  16,  17.  But 
where  are  our  feast  days,  new  moons,  meats,  etc. ,  under  the 
gospel  ?  Nowhere,  only  in  a  spiritual  sense.  So  Paul  says 
the  earthly  temple  w^as  only  a  ^^figure^^  of  a  "tabernacle  not 
made  with  hands."  Heb.  9:  9,  11.  How  could  he  say 
more  plainly  that  the  heavenly  are  not  literal  ?  Did  Christ 
minister  in  a  literal  temple  in  heaven  from  Adam  till  the 
cross,  four  thousand  years  ?  No.  Did  Melchisedec  have  a 
temple?  No.  Gen.  14:  18-20.  As  Christ  is  a  priest 
after  his  order,  he  needs  no  literal  temple.  According  to 
the  Adventists,  the  most  Holy  place  of  the  heavenly  sanctu- 
ary w^as  entirely  empty  and  unoccupied  from  the  ascension 
of  Jesus  till  1844.  Even  Christ  did  not  enter  it  once! 
Finally,  their  whole  argument  on  the  sanctuary  depends 
upon  proving  that  the  seventy  weeks  of  Dan.  9  are  a  part 
of  the  twenty-three  hundred  days  of  Dan.  8:  14.  But  does 
the  Bible  say  they  are  ?  No;  nor  can  they  prove  it.  The 
very  best  they  can  claim  is  to  make  it  plausible  that  they  are 


CHAPTER  Vm. 

MBS.  WHITE  AND  HER  REVELATIONS. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  regard  Mrs.  White  as  a  proph- 
etess and  her  writings  as  inspired.  They  make  long  argu- 
ments from  the  Bible  to  prove  that  there  should  be  gifts, 
miracles  and  prophets  in  the  church.  But  these  are  the  same 
arguments  used  by  Mormons,  Shakers,  etc. ,  in  favor  of  their 
churches.  They  do  not  touch  the  case.  The  question  is  not, 
Can  the  Lord  inspire  men  and  women?  but.  Has  he  so  in- 
spired Mrs.  White?  The  New  Testament  repeatedly  warns 
us  against  accepting  false  prophets.  ''Beware  of  false 
prophets,"  Matt.  7:  15.  "There  shall  arise  false  Christs  and 
false  prophets,"  Matt.  24:  24.  "Believe  not  every  spirit. 
*  *  *  Many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world." 
1  John,  4:  1. 

In  every  generation  many  have  arisen  claiming  to  be 
prophets.  All  have  found  followers  more  or  less.  All  they 
have  to  do  is  to  firmly  believe  in  themselves  and  make  ex- 
travagant claims  and  they  will  soon  have  followers.  Let  us 
notice  a  few  prominent  ones  near  our  own  times. 

1.      SWEDENBORG. 

He  was  born  in  Stockholm,  Sweden,  1688,  and  died  in 
1772.  His  father  was  a  nobleman  of  high  standing.  Hence 
Swedenborg  was  highly  educated  and  moved  in  the  highest 
society.  He  traveled  extensively,  and  conversed  with  the 
most  learned  men  of  the  age.  The  king  appointed  him  to 
a  high  office,  which  he  filled  with  great  acceptance  for  over 

(129) 


130  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

thirty  years.  He  rose  to  eminence  in  science  and  wrote 
seventy-seven  books,  covering  every  branch  of  science.  He 
was  a  favorite  with  the  king  and  royal  family.  He  was  of 
the  purest  character  and  devoutly  religious. 

swedenborg's  rules  of  life. 

1.  Often  to  read  and  meditate  on  the  Word  of  God. 

2.  To  submit  in  everything  to  the  will  of  Divine  Provi- 
dence. 

3.  To  observe  in  everything  a  propriety  of  behavior,  and 
to  keep  the  conscience  clear. 

4.  To  discharge  with  fidelity  the  functions  of  my  em- 
ployment, and  the  duties  of  my  office,  and  to  render  myself 
in  all  things  useful  to  society. 

Not  a  stain  rests  upon  his  moral  character. 

At  the  age  of  fifty-five  he  began  to  have  visions  of  heaven, 
hell,  angels,  and  the  spiritual  world.  He  says:  "I  have 
been  called  to  a  holy  office  by  the  Lord  himself,  who  most 
mercifully  appeared  to  me,  his  servant,  in  the  year  1743, 
when  he  opened  my  sight  into  the  spiritual  world  and  en- 
abled me  to  converse  with  spirits  and  angels."  Exactly  like 
what  Mrs.  White  claims.  This  work  he  continued  for  thirty 
years,  and  wrote  about  thirty  inspired  volumes.  He  made 
most  remarkable  predictions,  which  were  exactly  fulfilled  it 
is  claimed. 

He  founded  a  new  religion  based  upon  his  revelations. 
The  Bible  is  sacredly  taught  and  holy  living  enjoined. 

This  church  has  steadily  increased,  till  it  has  societies  in 
all  parts  of  the  world  and  in  the  leading  languages.  They 
publish  three  weeklies,  five  monthly  journals,  and  one  quar- 
terly, besides  many  books.  He  got  the  start  of  Mrs. 
White  just  one  hundred  years.  His  followers  believe  in 
him  just  as  implicitly  as  hers  do  in  her,  and  are  very  zealous 
in  propagating  their  faith.     In  many  respects  both  moves 


MRS.    WHITE  AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  131 

are  much  alike.     The  above  is  condensed  from  Schaff-Hei'^ 
zog's  Encyclopedia. 

2.      ANN   LEE   AND   THE    SHAKERS. 

These  are  so  well  known  in  America  that  I  need  say  but 
little  about  them.  Ann  Lee,  their  leader,  was  born  in  Eng- 
land, in  1736;  died,  1784.  Like  Mrs.  White,  "she  received 
no  education."  She  joined  a  society  who  were  having 
remarkable  religious  exercises,  and  soon  began  "to  have 
visions  and  make  revelations,"  which,  just  like  Mrs.  White, 
she  called  "testimonies."  '^Henceforth  she  claimed  to  be 
directed  by  revelations  and  visions."  Schaff-Herzog  Ency- 
clopedia, article  "Ann  Lee."  She  was  accepted  as  leader 
and  as  "the  second  appearing  of  Christ."  Like  Mrs. 
White,  she  required  a  "peculiar  kind  of  dress,"  "opposed 
war  and  the  use  of  pork."  Johnson's  Cyclopedia,  article 
"Shakers."  They  have  no  intercourse  with  other  churches; 
are  renowned  for  their  purity  and  devotion.  They  number 
about  8,000.  A  careful  comparison  shows  many  points  of 
similarity  between  Mrs.  Lee  and  Mrs.  White.  The  main 
evidence  upon  which  Adventists  rely  for  proof  of  Mrs. 
White's  inspiration  is  the  purity  of  her  life  and  the  high 
moral  and  religious  tone  of  her  writings.  They  say  her 
revelations  must  either  be  of  God  or  Satan.  If  of  Satan 
they  would  not  teach  such  purity  and  holiness.  The  same 
reasoning  will  prove  Mrs.  Lee  also  a  true  prophetess,  for 
she  exceeds  Mrs.  White  in  this  line,  so  that  "Shaker"  has 
become  a  synonym  for  honesty.  Adventists,  please  note 
this  point. 

3.      MRS.    JOANNA    SOUTHCOTT. 

She  was  born  in  England  in  1750,  of  poor  parents,  and 
was  wholly  uneducated.  She  worked  as  a  domestic  servant 
till  over  forty  years  of  age.     She  joined  the  Methodists  in 


182  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

1790.  In  1792  she  announced  herself  as  a  prophetess,  and 
* 'published  numerous  [over  sixty]  pamphlets  setting  forth 
her  revelations. "  Johnson's  Cyclopedia,  article '  'Southcott. '' 
She  had  trances  the  same  as  Mrs.  White  does,  and  an- 
nounced the  speedy  advent  of  Christ.  See  Encyclopedia 
Americana,  article  "Southcott."  She  carried  on  a  lucrative 
trade  in  the  sale  of  her  books  as  Mrs.  White  does.  Strange  as 
it  may  appear,  many  learned  ministers  believed  in  her,  and 
thousands  joined  her  followers,  till  in  a  few  years  they  num- 
bered upwards  of  one  hundred  thousand!  She  made  many 
predictions,  w^hich  her  followers  claimed  were  fulfilled. 
*'The  faith  of  her  followers,  among  whom  were  several 
clergymen  of  the  established  church,  rose  to  enthusiasm." 
Encyclopedia  Americana,  article  "Southcott." 

She  "regarded  herself  as  the  bride  of  the  Lamb,  and 
declared  herself,  when  sixty-four  years  of  age,  pregnant 
with  the  true  Messiah,  the  'second  Shilo,'  whom  she  would 
bear  Oct.  19,  1814.  *  *  *  *  Joanna  died  in  her 
self  delusion  Dec.  27,  1814;  but  her  followers,  who 
at  one  time  numbered  a  hundred  thousand^  continued 
till  1831  to  observe  the  Jewish  Sablath^  Schafi*-Herzog 
Encyclopedia.  "A  post  mortem  examination  showed  that 
she  had  been  suffering  from  dropsy. "  Johnson's  Cyclopedia. 
"Death  put  an  end  to  both  her  hopes  and  her  fears.  With 
her  followers,  however,  it  was  otherwise;  and,  though  for  a 
time  confounded  by  her  decease,  which  they  could  scarcely 
believe  to  be  real,  her  speedy  resurrection  was  confidently 
anticipated.  In  this  persuasion  many  lived  and  died,  nor 
is  her  sect  yet  extinct."  Encyclopedia  Americana,  article 
"Southcott." 

Let  candid  people  consider  these  facts.  This  movement 
occurring  only  thirty  years  before  Mrs.  White's  work,  was 
in  several  respects  like  the  present  Seventh-Day  Adventist 
move.     An  illiterate  woman  is  the  leader.     She  has  visions, 


MRS.    WHITE   AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  133 

writes  numerous  pamphlets  and  revelations  and  predicts 
the  speedy  advent  of  Christ.  Her  honesty  is  plainly  mani- 
fested ;  her  enthusiasm  and  that  of  her  followers  is  great. 
In  a  short  period  one  hundred  thousand  accept  her  "  testi- 
monies.'* The  present  Seventh -Day  Adventist  move  is 
similar  in  many  respects  as  has  already  been  seen  above. 

And  here  notice  the  terrible  tenacity  of  fanaticism  when 
once  started.  When  Joanna  died  we  would  have  supposed 
that  all  sane  persons  would  have  given  it  up ;  but  they  fix 
it  up  some  way  and  go  right  on,  and  there  they  are  now. 
So  with  the  followers  of  Mrs.  White.  No  matter  what 
blunders  or  failures  she  makes,  they  fix  them  up  some  way 
and  go  right  on.    They  will  do  it  after  she  is  dead  and  gone. 

4.      JOSEPH  SMITH  AND  THE  MORMONS. 

This  prophet  and  his  visions  and  revelations  are  so  well- 
known  that  I  mention  them  briefly.  Smith  was  born  in  1805, 
and  died  in  1844,  the  year  before  Mrs.  White  began  her  rev- 
elations. He  came  out  in  a  great  religious  awakening,  as 
Mrs.  White  did  in  the  Advent  move  of  1843-4.  In  1823 
he  also  began  to  have  "  visions  "  and  "  revelations  "  and 
see  angels.  The  second  advent  of  Christ  was  at  hand,  he 
said,  hence  the  name,  "  Latter  day  saints."  His  mission 
was  to  introduce  "  the  new  dispensation."  They  are  the 
"  saints,"  and  all  the  other  churches  are  "  heathen,"  or 
Gentiles.  Mrs.  White's  followers  are  the  saints  ;  all  other 
churches  are  "  Babylon  "  and  apostate. 

The  proof  of  their  inspiration  outstrips  Mrs.  White. 
They  work  many  miracles,  as  they  strongly  assert,  have 
the  gift  of  tongues,  and  can  show  many  predictions 
strikingly  fulfilled.  I  have  met  them  frequently,  seen 
Smith's  son,  and  know  them  well.  They  also  have  a  new 
Bible,  a  new  revelation,  have  started  a  new  sect,  and  will 
have  nothing  to  do  with  others,  but  proselyte  from  all. 


134:  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

The  Mormons  began  in  1831,  about  fifteen  ^^ears  before 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  did :  but  they  number  six  hun- 
dred thousand,  more  than  five  times  as  many  as  Ad- 
ventists. Adventists  claim  that  they  must  be  the  true 
church  because  they  are  persecuted;  but  Mormons  have  been 
persecuted  a  thousand  fold  more.  Smith  and  others  were 
killed;  many  have  been  whipped,  tarred  and  feathered,  rot- 
ten-egged, stoned,  mobbed,  run  out  of  town,  and  outlawed. 
So  they  must  be  the  true  church!  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
have  suflfered  no  persecution.  Not  one  of  them  has  ever 
been  whipped,  or  stoned,  or  egged,  or  tarred  and  feathered, 
or  mobbed,  or  killed.  Persecution!  They  have  no  idea 
what  it  is  and  never  will  though  they  are  anxious  to  pose  as 
great  martyrs. 

THE  VISIONS  THEIR  GUIDE. 

Mrs.  E.  G.  White,  wife  of  the  late  Elder  White,  leader 
of  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists,  claims  to  be  divinely  in- 
spired as  w^ere  the  prophets  of  the  Bible.  This  claim  is  ac- 
cepted by  the  whole  denomination.  They  defend  her 
inspiration  as  earnestly  as  they  do  that  of  the  Bible.  Year 
after  year,  in  their  State  and  General  Conferences,  ironclad 
resolutions  have  been  unanimously  adopted,  [endorsing  her 
revelations  in  the  strongest  manner. 

Time  and  again  1  have  seen  these  resolutions  adopted  by  a 
rising  vote  of  the  whole  congregation,  myself  with  them. 
"The  visions  of  Mrs.  E.  G.  White,  a  manifestation  of 
spiritual  Gifts  according  to  the  Scriptures,"  is  a  book  of  144 
pages  published  by  them  defending  her  inspiration. 

They  point  to  her  and  her  visions  as  the  sign  and  proof 
that  they  are  the  only  true  church.  Rev.  12:  17.  Hence  it 
can  be  seen  that  this  is  a  vital  subject  with  them. 

In  my  debate  with  the  Adventists  at  Healdsburg,  Cal.-. 
Feb.   21-28,   1889,  they  affirmed  this  proposition:     '^The 


MKS.    WHITE   AND   HEE   REVELATIONS.  135 

visions  of  Mrs.  E.  G.  White  are  revelations  from  God." 
Her  writings  are  called  "'Testimonies.^^  In  Testimony  No. 
33,  just  published,  she  makes  this  claim  for  her  writings: 
*'In  ancient  times  God  spoke  to  men  by  the  mouth  of  proph- 
ets and  apostles.  In  these  days  he  speaks  to  them  by  the 
Testimonies  of  his  spirit."  Page  189.  Again:  "It  is 
hardly  possible  for  men  to  offer  a  greater  insult  to  God  than 
to  despise  and  reject  the  instrumentalities  [her  Testimonies] 
that  he  has  appointed  to  lead  these."  Page  208.  Notice 
that  her  '^Testimonies''^  are  to  lead  God's  people  now.  Of  her 
inspiration  Smith  says:  ''It  comes  to  us  as  a  divine  message; 
it  is  a  ray  of  light  from  the  throne;  it  is  instruction  by  the 
Holy  Spirit."     Keplies  to  Elder  Canright,  page  77. 

In  the  Advent  Review^  July  2,  1889,  are  laid  down  these, 
''KuLES:  1.  We  will  not  neglect  the  study  of  the  Bible 
and  the  Testimonies. ''''  This  illustrates  the  place  they  assign 
her  writings,  viz. ,  an  appendix  to  the  Bible.  She  occupies 
the  same  relation  to  her  people  that  Mrs.  Southcott  did 
to  hers,  Ann  Lee  to  the  Shakers,  and  Joe  Smith  to  the 
Mormons. 

Among  themselves  they  quote  her  as  we  do  Paul.  A  text 
from  her  writings  is  an  end  of  all  controversy  in  doctrine 
and  discipline.  It  is  common  to  hear  them  say  that  when 
they  give  up  her  visions  they  will  give  up  the  Bible  too,  and 
they  often  do. 

Her  visions,  or  "testimonies,"  as  they  are  called,  are  so 
inseparably  connected  with  the  whole  Seventh-Day  Adventist 
doctrine  that  a  person  cannot  consistently  accept  the  one 
without  accepting  the  other.  Besides,  they  are  so  constantly 
urged  upon  their  people  in  every  possible  Avay ,  that  a  person 
cannot  long  feel  comfortable  among  them  unless  he,  too,  ac- 
cepts them.  Any  one  who  rejects  or  opposes  them  is 
branded  as  a  rebel  fighting  against  God.  Thus  Mrs.  White 
herself  says:     "If  you  lessen  the  confidence  of  God's  peo- 


136  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

pie  in  the  testimonies  he  has  sent  them,  you  are  rebelling 
against  God  as  certainly  as  were  Kora,  Dathan  and  Abiram. " 
Testimony  No.  31/page  62.  She  claims  that  every  line  she 
writes,  even  in  a  private  letter,  is  directly  inspired  by  God 
— "the  precious  rays  of  light  shining  from  the  throne," 
page  63.  Of  her  own  words  she  says:  "It  is  God,  and  not 
an  erring  mortal,  that  has  spoken,"  Testimonies,  Vol.  Ill, 
page  257.  She  states  over  and  over  that  those  who  doubt  or 
oppose  her  are  fighting  against  God,  sinning  against  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Thus:  "fighting  the  Spirit  of  God.  Those 
*  *  *  who  would  break  down  our  testimony,  I  saw,  are 
not  fighting  against  us,  but  against  God,"  page  260.  I  could 
quote  scores  of  passages  like  these. 

These  inspired  writings  now  embrace  forty  bound 
volumes.  Thus  they  have  another  Bible,  just  the  same  as 
the  Mormons  have.  They  have  to  read  our  old  Bible  in  the 
light  of  this  new  Bible.  Any  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
found  in  these  "testimonies"  settles  its  meaning  beyond 
further  dispute.  She  says:  "I  took  the  precious  Bible  and 
surrounded  it  with  the  several  testimonies  to  the  church," 
vol.  2,  page  605.  Exactly;  and  by  the  light  of  these  "testi- 
monies" that  old  Bible  must  now  be  read.  She  continues: 
"God  has,  through  the  testimonies,  simplified  the  great 
truths  already  given. "  Yes,  we  must  now  take  the  Bible  as 
thus  simplified  by  her!  Swedenborg,  Mrs.  Southcott,  Ann 
Lee,  Joseph  Smith  and  Mrs.  White  have  each  done  the  same 
thing — had  a  new  revelation,  written  inspired  books,  and 
started  a  new  sect  with  a  new  religion. 

There  is  not  a  doctrine  nor  a  practice  of  the  church,  from 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  washing  of  feet,  upon 
which  she  has  not  written.  That  settles  it.  No  further  in- 
vestigation can  be  made  on  any  of  these  matters,  only  to 
gather  evidence  and  construe  everything  to  sustain  it.  How, 
then,  can  their  ministers  or  people  be  free  to  think  and  in- 


MRS.    WHITE   AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  137 

vestigate  for  themselves?  They  can  not,  dare  not,  and  do 
not.  How  often  I  have  seen  some  intelligent  thought  ex- 
tinguished with  this  remark:  "That  contradicts  Sister 
White."  This  ends  the  matter.  Everything  she  writes, 
w^hether  in  a  private  letter  or  newspaper  article,  is  inspired. 
Thus:  "God  was  speaking  through  clay.  *  *  *  In 
these  letters  which  I  write,  in  the  testimonies  I  bear,  I  am 
presenting  to  you  that  which  the  Lord  has  presented  to  me. 
I  do  not  write  one  article  in  the  paper  expressing  merel}'  my 
own  ideas.  They  are  what  God  has  opened  before  me  in 
vision — the  precious  rays  of  light  shining  from  the  throne." 
Testimony  No.  31,  page  63.  There  you  have  it,  simon  pure: 
every  word  she  WTites  is  a  ray  of  light  from  the  throne  of 
God.     Reject  that,  and  you  are  rejected  of  God. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  Mrs.  White  claims  the  very 
highest  inspiration,  the  voice  of  God  speaking  directly 
through  her.  Her  followers  contend  that  she  must  either 
be  a  true  prophetess  or  else  a  hypocrite;  but  she  is  neither. 
Few  are  aw^are  of  what  a  pow^erful  influence  an  excited 
religious  imagination  will  have  over  a  person.  Enthusiasts 
and  fanatics  are  generally  honest  people.  Mrs.  White  is 
simply  a  religious  enthusiast  self-deceived.  This  I  shall 
prove  by  stubborn  facts. 

I  long  studied  Mrs.  White  to  determine  for  myself  her 
real  character  till  her  case  is  clear  to  my  own  mind.  Natur- 
ally^ religious,  young  in  years,  uneducated,  sickly,  she  was 
carried  aw  ay  in  the  Millcrite  excitement  of  1840-44.  Her 
fits  she  accepted  as  the  power  of  God.  Encouraged  and 
sustained  by  her  husband,  this  thought  grew  to  be  a  reality 
to  her.  A  careful  study  of  her  writings  shows  that  each 
year  she  has  become  a  Little  stronger  in  her  claims  of  in- 
spiration till  now  she  asserts  that  all  her  utterances,  even 
in  a  letter,  or  in  a  sermon,  are  inspired.  She  claims  that 
her  dreams,  her  impressions  of  mind  are  all  the  voice  of  Q*^*^ 


138  SEVENTH-DAY    ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

to  her.  She  devotes  38  pages  of  her  Testimony  Ko.  33  to 
vindicating  her  own  high  inspiration.  Probably  she  has 
some  way  of  fixing  up  her  mistakes,  contradictions  and  de- 
ceptions satisfactory  to  herself.  So  now  anything  she  can 
learn  in  any  way,  any  impression  of  mind,  any  thought 
clear  to  herself,  is  the  Spirit  speaking  to  her.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  she  believes  it.  She  is  more  deceived  than  her 
followers,  for  many  of  them  privately  doubt  her  inspir- 
ation while  publicly  defending  it. 

That  she  is  not  inspired  is  plainly  shown  by  many  facts. 
She  has  never  wrought  a  single  miracle.  The  old  prophets 
and  the  apostles  wrought  miracles  freely,  to  prove  that  God 
had  sent  them.  In  all  these  seventy  years,  in  all  her  forty 
volumes,  not  a  single  prediction  has  she  ever  made  that  has 
come  to  pass.  This  is  astonishing,  considering  that  she 
dwells  almost  wholly  in  predictions.  It  seems  as  though 
she  ought  to  have  blundered  into  many  things  which  could 
afterward  be  construed  into  a  fulfilled  prophecy.  But  not 
one  can  be  found.  This  shows  how  wild  and  utterly  wron^ 
her  theories  have  been. 

She  says  in  "Spiritual  Gifts,"  Vol.  II,  page  293:  "I  am 
just  as  dependent  upon  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  in  relating  or 
writino^ a  vision  as  in  havino^  a  vision.'"  Here  she  claims 
that  the  very  words  in  which  her  visions  are  recorded  are  of 
divine  inspiration.  But  I  know  that  the  words  in  her  writ- 
ten "testimonies"  are  not  inspired;  for — 

1.  When  writing  them  out  she  will  often  change  what 
she  has  written,  and  write  it  very  difierently.  I  have  seen 
her  scratch  out  a  whole  page,  or  a  line,  or  a  sentence,  and 
write  it  over  difierently.  If  God  gave  her  the  words,  why 
did  she  scratch  them  out  and  alter  them? 

2.  I  have  repeatedly  seen  her  sit  with  pen  in  hand  and 
read  her  manuscript  to  her  husband  for  hours,  while  he  sug- 
gested many  changes,  which  she  made.     She  would  scratch 

t 


MRS.    WHITE   AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  139 

«mt  her  own  words  and  put  in  his,  somtimes  whole  sentences. 
Was  he  inspired,  too? 

3.  As  she  is  ignorant  of  grammar,  of  late  years  she  has 
employed  an  accomplished  writer  to  take  her  manuscript 
and  correct  it,  improve  its  wording,  polish  it  up,  and  put  it 
in  popular  style,  so  her  books  will  sell  better.  Thousands 
of  words,  not  her  own,  are  thus  put  in  by  these  other  per- 
sons, some  of  whom  were  not  even  Christians.  Are  their 
words  inspired,  too? 

4.  She  often  copies  her  subject  matter  without  credit  or 
sign  of  quotation,  from  other  authors.  Indeed  her  last 
book,  * 'Great  Controvers}^,"  which  they  laud  so  highly  as 
her  greatest  work,  is  largely  a  compilation  from  Andrew's 
History  of  the  Sabbath,  History  of  the  Waldenses  by 
Wylie,  Life  of  Miller  by  White,  Thoughts  on  Kevelation  by 
Smith,  and  other  books. 

This  she  pretends  was  all  revealed  to  her  directly  from 
heaven.  It  is  not  something  she  has  heard  or  read  or 
studied  out,  but  it  is  what  God  has  revealed  to  her  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Stubborn  facts  shows  that  her  claim  is  utterly 
false  and  her  book  a  deception  the  same  as  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  which  Smith  stole  from  Spaulding. 

The  Pastor's  Union  of  Healdsburg,  Cal. ,  investigated  the 
matter  and  published  many  examples  out  of  hundreds  where 
she  had  copied  her  matter  directly  from  other  authors  with- 
out anything  to  show  it  was  copied.  They  went  through 
several  works  and  scores  of  pages  finding  the  same  thing 
all  through  her  book.  This  proves  her  guilty  of  stealing 
her  ideas  and  matter  from  other  authors  and  putting  them 
ofl'  on  her  followers  as  a  revelation  from  God! 

6.      PASSAGES   SUPPRESSED. 

Several  important  passages  in  the  first  edition  of  her 
visions  have  been  suppressed  in  all  later  ones  as  they  con- 


140  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

tradict  what  Adventists  now  believe.  For  thirty  years  they 
have  chafed  under  this  charge  of  suppression.  They  have 
denied  it,  made  light  of  it;  and  finally  the  pressure  was  so 
hard  that  in  1882,  they  republished  her  first  visions,  claim- 
ing to  give  them  all  and  word  for  word.  They  say:  ''No 
changes  from  the  original  work  have  been  made."  Preface 
to  Early  Writings,  page  4.  They  also  say  the  work  was 
printed  "under  the  author's  own  eye  and  with  her  full  ap- 
proval.'- Page  4.  They  denounce  it  as  a  wicked  slander  to 
say  that  anything  has  been  suppressed. 

But  I  have  before  me  the  original  work  entitled,  *'A 
Word  to  the  Little  Flock,"  published  by  Jas.  White,  1847; 
also  "The  Present  Truth,"  August,  1849,  containing  her 
original  visions.  Comparing  the  present  edition  with  the 
original,  I  find  seven  different  places  where  from  Jwe  to  thirty 
lines  in  a  place  have  been  cut  right  out  with  no  sign  of 
omission!  The  suppressed  passages  are  very  damaging  to 
her  inspiration.  I  will  give  one  short  one  as  an  illustration. 
It  teaches  what  they  now  deny,  viz. ,  that  no  one  could  be 
converted  after  1844.    The  suppressed  lines  are  in  brackets. 

AS    ORIGINALLY  PUBLISHED. 

"I  saw  that  the  mysterious  signs  and  wonders,  and  false 
reformations  would  increase  and  spread.  The  reformations 
that  were  shown  me  were  not  reformations  from  error  to 
truth  [but  from  bad  to  worse,  for  those  who  professed  a 
change  of  heart  had  only  wrapped  about  them  a  religious 
garb,  which  covered  up  the  iniquity  of  a  wicked  heart.  Some 
appeared  to  have  been  really  converted,  so  as  to  deceive  God's 
people,  but  if  their  hearts  could  be  seen  they  would  appear 
as  black  as  ever].  My  accompanying  angel  bade  me  to  look 
for  the  travail  of  soul  for  sinners  as  used  to  be.  I  looked, 
but  could  not  see  it,  for  the  time  for  their  salvation  is  past.  '^ 
Present  Truth,  page  22,  published  August,  1849. 


MES.    \^TIITE   AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  141 

AS  NOW  PUBLISHED. 

"I  saw  that  the  mysterious  signs  and  wonders,  and  false 
reformations  would  increase  and  spread.  The  reformations 
that  were  shown  me  were  not  reformations  from  error  to 
truth. 

"My  accompanying  angel  bade  me  look  for  the  travail  of 
soul  for  sinners  as  used  to  be.  I  looked,  but  could  not  see 
it,  for  the  time  for  their  salvation  is  past."  Page  37,  edition 
of  1882. 

Now  if  they  mean  to  be  honest  and  dare  publish  these 
suppressed  passages,  why  don't  they?  They  know  very  well 
what  they  are;  Mrs.  White  knows  what  they  are;  yet  the 
book  is  republished  "under  her  own  eye"  and  all  these  pas' 
sages  left  out  when  it  is  stated  that  "no  changes  from  the 
original  work  have  been  made."  I  have  both  books  before 
me  now  and  know  the  statement  to  be  untrue  and  so  do 
they;  yet  they  keep  right  on  sending  it  out. 

6.  In  1885  all  her  "testimonies"  were  republished  in  four 
volumes,  under  the  eye  of  her  own  son  and  a  critical  editor. 
Opening  hap-hazard  to  four  different  pages  in  Vol.  L,  1 
read  and  compared  them  with  the  original  publication  which 
I  have.  I  found  on  an  average  twenty-four  changes  of  the 
words  on  each  page!  Her  words  were  thrown  out  and  other 
words  put  in  and  other  changes  made,  in  some  cases  so  many 
that  it  was  difficult  to  read  the  two  together.  At  the  same 
rate  in  the  four  volumes,  there  would  be  63,720  changes. 

Taking,  then,  the  words  which  were  put  in  by  her  husband, 
by  her  copyist,  by  her  son,  by  her  editors,  and  those  copied 
from  other  authors,  probably  they  comprise  from  one-tenth 
to  one  quarter  of  all  her  books.  Fine  inspiration  that  is! 
The  common  reader  knows  nothing  about  these  damaging 
facts,  but  I  could  not  avoid  knowing  them,  for  I  have  been 
Trhere  I  saw  it  myself. 


142  SBTENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

MRS.    white's  mistakes. 

I  could  fill  a  volume  with  proof  of  her  mistakes,  for  ail 
of  her  books  are  full  of  them.     1  will  select  but  a  few. 

The  shut  door.  For  several  years  after  1844,  Mrs.  White 
had  visions  saying  that  probation  ended  in  that  year,  that 
there  was  no  more  salvation  for  sinners.  Of  course  she  has 
to  deny  this  now,  but  the  proof  is  overwhelmingly  against 
her. 

1.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  are  compelled  to  admit  that 
for  some  time  after  1844  Adventists  did  hold  that  proba- 
tion was  ended.  Even  Mrs.  White  admits  it.  She  says: 
'* After  the  passing  of  the  time  of  expectation,  in  1844,  Ad- 
ventists still  believed  the  Saviour's  coming  to  be  very  near; 
they  held  that  *  *  *  the  work  of  Christ  as  man's  in- 
tercessor before  God  had  ceased.  Having  given  the  warning 
of  the  judgment  near,  they  felt  that  their  work  for  the 
world  was  done,  and  they  lost  their  burden  of  soul  for  the 
salvation  of  sinners.  *  *  *  All  this  confirmed  them  in  the 
belief  that  probation  had  ended,  or,  as  they  then  expressed  it, 
'the  door  of  mercy  was  shut. ' "  Great  Controversy,  page 
268.  This  statement  of  Mrs.  White  herself  is  enough  to 
settle  the  point  that  the  Adventists  believed  "the  door  of 
mercy  was  shut"  in  1844.  Notice  here  that  the  "shut 
door"  means  the  end  of  probation,  the  close  of  mercy  for 
sinners. 

Mr.  Miller  for  a  while  advocated  the  shut  door  in  1844, 
He  says: 

"We  have  done  our  work  in  warning  sinners  and  in  try- 
ing to  awake  a  formal  church.  God  in  his  providence  has 
SHUT  THE  DOOR;  we  can  only  stir  one  another  up  to  be 
patient."     Advent  Herald^  Dec.  11,  1844. 

Then  in  the  Voice  of  Truth  Feb.  19,  1845,  he  says:  *''I 
have  not  seen  a  genuine  conversion  since." 


MRS.    WHITE   AND   HER  REVELATIONS.  143 

Elder  G.  I.  Butler,  in  the  Review  and  Herald^  March  3, 
1885,  says:  ^'As  the  time  passed  there  was  a  general  feeling 
amonfi:  ail  the  earnest  believers  that  their  work  for  the  world 
was  done."  "There  can  be  no  question  that  for  months 
after  the  time  passed  it  was  the  general  sentiment  that  their 
work  of  warning  the  world  was  over."  ''Their  burden  was 
gone,  and  they  thought  their  work  was  done."  Yes;  that  is 
just  what  they  did  believe,  probation  was  ended. 

2.  I  have  conversed  with  several  individuals  who  affirm 
positively  that  they  heard  her  teach  this  repeatedly.  There 
are  many  now  living  who  will  swear  that  they  heard  her 
teach  it. 

3.  Written  testimony.  John  Megquier,  Saco,  Me.,  a 
man  noted  for  his  integrity,  writes:  '*We  well  know  tho 
course  of  Ellen  G.  White,  the  visionist,  while  in  the  state  of 
Maine.  About  the  first  visions  she  had  were  at  my  house  in 
Poland.  She  said  that  God  had  told  her  in  vision  that  the 
door  of  mercy  had  closed,  and  there  was  no  more  chance 
for  the  world."  The  True  Sabbath,  by  Miles  Grant, 
page  70.  Mrs.  L.  S.  Burdick,  San  Francisco,  California, 
was  well  acquainted  with  Mrs.  White.  She  writes:  "I  be- 
came acquainted  with  James  White  and  Ellen  Harmon  (now 
Mrs  White)  early  in  1845.  At  the  time  of  my  first  ac- 
quaintance with  them  they  were  in  v/ild  fanaticism,  used  to 
sit  on  the  floor  instead  of  chairs,  and  creep  around  the 
floor  like  little  children.  Such  freaks  were  considered  a 
mark  of  humility.  They  were  not  married,  but  traveling 
together.  Ellen  was  having  what  was  called  visions:  said 
God  had  shown  her  in  vision  that  Jesus  Christ  arose  on  the 
tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month,  1844,  and  shut  the  door  of 
mercy;  had  left  forever  the  mediatorial  thron-e;  the  whole 
world  was  doomed  and  lost  and  there  never  could  be  another 
ginner  saved."  L.  S.  Burdick,  "True Sabbath,"  page  72.  O. 
B.  L.  Crosier  kept  the  Sabbath  with  them  in  1848.     He 


144  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

writes:  '*Ann  Arbor,  Mien.,  Dec.  1,  1887.  Yes,  I  know 
that  Ellen  G.  Harmon,  now  Mrs.  White,  held  the  shut  doo? 
theory  at  that  date."  Then  he  gives  his  proof.  These 
persons  knew  the  facts  and  have  put  their  testimony  on 
record. 

4.  The  Present  Truth^  James  White,  editor,  Oswego, 
N.  Y.,  May,  1850,  has  an  article  by  the  editor  on  the 
"Sanctuary,  2300  Days,  and  the  Shut  Door."  Elder  White 
says:  "At  that  point  of  time  [1844]  the  midnight  cry  was 
given,  the  work  for  the  world  was  closed  up,  and  Jesus 
passed  into  the  most  holy  place.  *  *  *  When  we  came 
up  to  that  point  of  time,  all  our  sympathy,  burden  and 
prayers  for  sinners  ceased,  and  the  unanimous  feeling  and 
testimony  was  that  our  work  for  the  world  was  finished  toi  • 
ever.  *  *  *  He  [Jesus]  is  still  merciful  to  his  saints, 
and  ever  will  be;  and  Jesus  is  still  their  advocate  and  priest; 
but  the  sinner,  to  whom  Jesus  has  stretched  out  his  arms 
all  the  day  long,  and  who  had  rejected  the  offers  of  salva- 
tion, was  left  without  an  advocate  when  Jesus  passed  from 
the  holy  place  and  shut  that  door  in  1844."  Any  honest 
man  can  see  that  the  shut  door  meant  no  salvation  for  sinners, 
and  this  is  what  Elder  White  taught  in  1850.  In  a  report 
of  labor  in  the  Advent  Review^  May  15,  1850,  Elder  White, 
in  noticing  the  death  of  a  sister  Hastings,  says:  "She  em- 
braced the  Sabbath  in  1846,  and  has  ever  believed  that  the 
work  of  warning  the  world  closed  in  1844." 

Again:  "Many  will  point  us  to  one  who  is  said  to  be  con- 
verted, for  positive  proof  that  the  door  is  not  shut,  thus 
yielding  the  word  of  God  for  the  feelings  of  an  individual." 
Present  Truth,  Dec.  1849.  This  shows  that  they  held  to  the 
shut  door  idea  for  years  after  1844.  What  a  fanatical  and 
abominable  doctrine  that  was  for  Christians  to  teach  !  Mrs. 
White  was  right  with  them  and  in  full  harmony  with  them 
on  this  all  these  years.     She  had  revelations  almost  daily. 


MRS.    WHITE   AND   HEK  REVELATIONS  145 

If  they  were  of  God,  why  did  she  not  correct  them  in  this 
fearful  error?  Even  if  she  had  said  nothing  confirming  this 
delusion,  yet  the  simple  fact  that  she  had  no  revelation  con- 
tradicting it  during  all  those  years,  is  enough  to  destroy  her 
claim  to  inspiration.  But  the  fact  is,  she  taught  this  error  as 
strongly  in  her  visions  as  the  brethren  did  in  their  arguments. 

Here  are  her  own  words:  "March  24,  1849.  -x-  *  •»«• 
I  was  shown  that  the  commandments  of  God  and  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  Christ,  relating  to  the  shut  door,  could  not 
be  separated.  *  *  -5^  I  saw  that  the  mysterious  signs  and 
wonders  and  false  reformations  would  increase  and  spread. 
The  reformations  that  were  shown  me  were  not  reformations 
from  error  to  truth,  but  from  bad  to  worse,  for  those  who 
professed  a  change  of  heart  had  only  wrapped  about  them  a 
religious  garb,  which  covered  up  the  iniquity  of  a  wicked 
heart.  Some  appeared  to  have  been  really  converted,  so  as  to 
deceive  God's  people,  but  if  their  hearts  could  be  seen  they 
would  appear  as  black  as  ever.  My  accompanying  angel 
bade  me  look  for  the  travail  of  soul  for  sinners  as  used  to 
be.  I  looked,  but  could  not  see  it,  for  the  time  for  their 
salvation  is  past."  "Present  Truth,"  pages  21-22,  published 
August,  1849. 

Here  you  have  the  shut  door  and  no  mercy  for  sinners 
just  as  clear  as  language  can  make  it.  Every  candid  reader 
knows  what  it  teaches.  It  is  pitiable  to  see  the  shifts  and 
turns,  evasions,  dodges,  quibbles,  if  not  something  worse, 
resorted  to  on  this  passage  to  save  Mrs.  White's  visions. 
But  there  it  stands,  to  mock  at  all  their  efibrts.  Here  is 
another  passage  teaching  the  same  doctrine:  "It  was  just 
as  impossible  for  them  to  get  on  the  path  again  and  go  to 
the  city,  as  all  the  wicked  world  which  God  had  rejected." 
"A  Word  to  the  Little  Flock,"  page  14,  published  in  1847. 
At  this  time,  then,  God  had  rejected  the  wicked  world — 
shut  door,  you  see. 


146  SPVENTH-DAT  ADYENTISM  B£I^OUN0£D. 

Here  is  another  vision  in  which  she  teaches  the  doctrine  of 
the  shut  door  in  its  very  worst  form,  that  is  that  after  1844 
not  one  ray  of  light  comes  from  Jesus  to  the  wicked  but  they 
are  all  turned  over  to  the  devil  to  whom  they  now  pray  in- 
stead of  to  God.  After  Jesus  left  the  holy  place  she  says: 
*'I  did  not  see  one  ray  of  light  pass  from  Jesus  to  the  care- 
less multitude  after  he  arose  and  they  were  left  in  perfect 
darkness.  *  *  *  Satan  appeared  to  be  by  the  throne 
trying  to  carry  on  the  work  of  God.  I  saw  them  look  up 
to  the  throne  and  pray,  Father  give  us  thy  spirit;  then 
Satan  would  breathe  upon  them  an  unholy  influence." — Early 
Writings,  page  46-^7.  Not  one  ray  of  light  comes  to  sin- 
ners since  1844  but  all  are  left  to  the  Devil!  What  is  the 
use  of  their  denying  that  she  taught  this  doctrine?  She  cer- 
tainly did  and  she  knows  it.  This  fact  and  the  bold  denial 
of  it  now,  brand  her  as  a  false  teacher. 

I  will  briefly  notice  some  other  mistakes  she  has  made, 
enough  to  show  that  she  is  wholly  unreliable. 

1.  For  over  forty  years  she,  herself,  has  been  constantly 
expecting  the  end  of  the  world,  and  it  has  not  come  yet. 
This  alone  ought  to  open  the  eyes  of  all  to  see  that  she  has 
no  knowledge  of  the  future. 

2.  Slaves.  In  1849  she  foretold  what  would  happen 
when  Jesus  comes,  and  said:  "I  saw  the  pious  slave  rise  in 
triumph  and  victory  and  shake  ofi*  the  chains  that  bound  him, 
while  his  wicked  master  was  in  confusion. "  Early  Writings, 
page  28.  But  now  there  are  no  slaves.  She  had  not  then 
dreamed  of  the  abolition  of  slavery. 

3.  Nations  angry.  "The  nations  are  now  getting  angry." 
Early  Writings,  page  29.  That  was  thirty-eight  years  ago. 
It  takes  a  long  time  for  them  to  get  fighting  mad  I 

4.  Another  mistake.  '  'Some  are  looking  too  far  off  for  the 
coming  of  the  Lord. "  Page  49.  That  was  thirty-eight  years 
ago,  and  no  Adventist  then  looked  for  time  to  last  ten  years. 


MRS.  WHITE  AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  147 

6.  Another  blunder.  "  The  time  for  Jesus  to  be  in  the 
most  holy  place  was  nearly  finished."  Page  49.  Jesus  went 
there  in  1844.  Hence,  he  had  then  been  there  six  years. 
She  saw  that  the  time  for  him  to  be  there  was  nearly  fin- 
ished, but  it  has  continued  sixty  years  since.  A  false 
prediction,  as  any  one  can  see. 

6.  A  few  months  only  in  1 849.  "  Now  time  is  almost 
finished,  and  what  we  have  been  [six]  years  learning,  they 
[new  converts]  will  have  to  learn  in  a  few  months.'- 
Page  57.  But  instead  of  a  few  months,  they  have  had 
sixty  years  1 

7.  She  broke  the  Sabbath  for  eleven  years.  Though  she 
had  vision  after  vision  about  the  Sabbath,  yet  for  eleven 
years  they  all  began  it  at  six  p.  M.  instead  of  at  sunset  as  the 
law  requires.  Lev.  23:32.  When  they  found  their  mis- 
take, she  saw  it,  too,  in  vision.  She  says:  "I  inquired 
why  it  had  been  thus  that  at  this  late  date  we  must 
change. " 

Testimony  No.  1,  page  13.     A  poor  leader  she. 

8.  HER  PREDICTIONS  ABOUT  THE  REBELLION  A  FAILURE. 

"Jan.  4,  1862,  I  was  shown  some  things  in  regard  to  our 
nation."  Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  page  253.  All  will  remem- 
ber the  great  anxiety  and  uncertainty  of  those  days.  How 
would  the  war  end?  Specially  were  her  people  anxious,  as 
they  were  non-combatants  and  liable  to  the  draft.  Here  was 
an  inspired  prophetess  right  in  their  midst,  having  abundant 
revelations  about  the  length  of  women's  dresses,  what  peo- 
ple should  eat,  etc.  What  relief  to  all  would  have  been  a 
few  short  words  from  heaven  about  the  results  of  the  war. 
The  pressure  upon  her  for  light  was  so  great  that  she  had  to 
say  something.  So  she  took  her  pen  and  scribbled  away 
through  thirty-two  long  pages  about  the  war.  At  this  date 
it  is  amusing  to  read  it.     This  "revelation"  alone  is  enough 


148  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

to  show  that  she  knows  absolutely  nothing  of  the  future. 
All  she  wrote  was  merely  a  restatement  of  the  popular  view 
of  the  matter  at  that  time.  I  shall  qaote  a  few  sentences  as 
samples,  "The  system  of  slavery,  w^hich  has  ruined  our 
nation,  is  left  to  live  and  stir  up  another  rebellion."  Was 
slavery  left  to  stir  up  another  rebellion?  Now  we  know  that 
statement  was  utterly  untrue. 

Again.  ^'It  seemed  impossible  to  have  the  war  conducted 
successfully,"  page  256.  Another  failure,  for  it  was  con- 
ducted successfully.  All  can  see  that  her  ideas  were  just 
those  generally  rife  at  the  time.  I  have  long  watched  and 
studied  her  carefully,  till  I  have  become  satisfied  that  this  is 
always  true  of  her  prophesyings — they  are  wholly  moulded 
by  the  sentiment  around  her  at  the  time.  Here  is  another: 
*'This  nation  will  yet  be  humbled  into  the  dust"  page  259. 
Was  it?  No.  Again:  "When  England  does  declare  war, 
all  nations  will  have  an  interest  of  their  own  to  serve,  and 
there  will  be  general  war,"  page  259.  Did  anything  of  this 
kind  happen?  No;  but  it  is  just  what  all  then  expected. 
Once  more:  "Had  our  nation  remained  united,  it  would 
have  had  strength;  but  divided,  it  must  fall^^  P^ge  260. 
How  it  did  fall!  "I  was  shown  distress  and  perplexity  and 
famine  in  the  land,"  page  260.  Just  what  all  expected  then; 
but  where  was  the  famine?  '  'It  looked  to  me  like  an  im- 
possibility now  for  slavery  to  be  done  away,"  page  266.  Of 
course  it  did,  for  that  was  just  the  way  it  looked  to  all  others 
then.  But  did  it  look  that  way  to  God?  That  was  the 
question.     Was  he  telling  her  ? 

She  claims  that  what  she  writes  is  not  merely  her  own 
ideas  but  the  mind  of  God  himself.  Thus:  "1  do  not  write 
one  article  in  the  paper  expressing  merely  my  own  ideas. 
They  are  what  God  has  opened  before  me  in  vision."  Testi- 
mony, No.  31,  page  63.  This,  then,  was  the  way  the  thing 
looked  to  God  at  that  time!    Again:  "Blood  has  been  poured 


MKS.    WHITE   AND   HER   REVELATIONS.  14:9 

out  like  water,  and  tu^  naught."  Testimony  for  the  Churcn, 
Vol.  I,  page  367.  Was  it  for  naught,  ye  brave  soldiers?  Ye 
liberated  slaves?  Ye  freed  nation?  I  could  give  scores  of 
such  quotations  all  through  her  writings,  showing  how  they 
have  failed  always  and  everywhere. 

THE   REFORM     DRESS. 

One  of  the  worst  blunders  Mrs.  White  ever  made,  one 
which  plainly  showed  her  fanaticism  and  that  God  had 
nothing  to  do  with  her  work,  was  the  move  she  made  on 
dress.  First  she  wrote:  "God  would  not  have  his  people 
adopt  the  so-called  reform  dress,"  "Testimonies,"  Vol.  I, 
page  421.  "If  women  would  wear  their  dresses  so  as  to 
clear  the  filth  of  the  streets  an  inch  or  two,"  it  would  be  in 
harmony  with  their  faith,  page  424.  Four  years  pass, 
and  she  again  writes:  "God  would  now  have  his  people 
adopt  the  reform  dress,"  page  525.  "Nine  inches  as  nearly 
accords  with  my  views  of  the  matter  as  I  am  able  to  ex- 
press it  in  inches,"  page  521.  Here  are  two  revelations  ex- 
actly opposite  as  to  the  style  of  dress  and  the  length,  an 
inch  or  two,  and  then  nine  inches,  from  the  ground  is  the 
length.  What  occasioned  this  change  in  the  mind  of  the 
Lord?  The  answer  is  easy:  In  the  time  between  the  two 
revelations  Mrs.  AYhite  had  spent  some  time  at  Dr.  Jackson's 
"Home,"  Dansville,  N.  Y.  Here  a  short  dress  with  pants 
was  worn,  and  she  fell  in  with  the  idea  and  soon  had  a  vision 
requiring  its  adoption  as  above.  That  is  the  whole  of  it. 
But  the  dress  was  a  shame  and  a  disgrace  and  an  utter  fail- 
ure. Think  of  a  modest  woman  on  the  streets  with  pants 
on,  and  her  dress  cut  ofi'half  way  up  to  the  knees!  But  for 
about  eight  years  Mrs.  White  pushed  that  dress  with  all  her 
power,  put  it  on  herself  as  an  example,  till  most  of  the  sisters 
put  it  on.  But  it  created  a  terrible  commotion.  Husbsinds 
Bwore,    brothers  refused  to  Vv^alk  with   their  sisters,    men 


160  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

sneered  and  boys  hooted.  Some  of  the  sisters  argued, 
some  cried,  some  rebelled,  but  most  submitted.  I  know,  for 
my  own  wife  wore  it  for  eight  years — had  to.  Finally,  Mrs. 
White  quietly  dropped  it  ofl'  herself,  and  now  no  one  wears 
it.  Here  they  are  all  living  in  direct  violation  of  a  plain 
revelation  from  God!  Common  sense  came  out  ahead  of 
fanaticism. 

If  God  ever  spoke  through  Mrs.  White  about  anything, 
he  did  about  the  dress,  requiring  the  women  to  wear  it.  I 
was  there  and  know  how  she  urged  it,  heard  her  many  times. 
Her  Testimonies  at  the  time  were  full  of  it.  She  said:  ''I 
have  done  my  duty;  I  have  borne  my  testimony,  and  those 
who  have  heard  me  and  read  that  which  I  have 
written,  must  now  bear  the  responsibility  of  receiving 
or  rejecting  the  light  given.  If  they  choose  to  venture 
to  be  forgetful  hearers,  and  not  doers  of  the  work, 
they  run  their  own  risk,  and  will  be  accountable  to  God  !" 
Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  page  525.  Yet  they  have  all  run  the 
risk  and  laid  oS  the  dress,  Mrs.  White  with  the  rest.  How 
does  she  get  out  of  it?  By  all  sorts  of  dodges,  by  blaming 
everybody  but  herself.  It  has  been  a  great  stumbling  block 
to  them. 

HER  REVELATIONS  INFLUENCED  BY  OTHERS. 

Mrs.  White  originates  nothing.  In  her  vision  she  always 
sees  just  what  she  and  her  friends  at  the  time  happen  to  be- 
lieve and  be  interested  in.  Her  husband  and  other  leading 
men  first  accept  or  study  out  a  theory  and  talk  it  till  her 
mind  is  full  of  it.  Then  when  she  is  in  her  trance  that  is 
just  what  she  sees.  One  who  has  been  all  through  the 
Advent  work  and  well  knows,  says:  "The  visions  have 
brought  out  no  points  of  faith  held  by  Seventh-Day  Ad- 
rentists." 

Mrs.  White  herself  confesses  that  she  is  influenced  bv  others 


MRS.    WHITE   AND   HER  REVELATIONS.  161 

in  writing  her  "Testimonies."  Thus:  pages  138-139.  "What 
appeared  in  Testimony  No.  11,  concerning  the  Health  Insti- 
tute should  not  have  been  given  until  I  was  able  to  write  out 
all  I  had  seen  in  regard  to  it.  *  ^  *  I  yielded  my  judg- 
ment to  that  of  others  and  wrote  what  appeared  in  No.  11. 
*  *  I  In  this  I  did  wrong."  Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  page 
563.  She  here  ''lets  the  cat  out  of  the  bag."  She  made 
Buch  a  blunder  that  she  was  compelled  to  blame  some  one 
else  for  it  and  so  to  tell  the  truth  that  she  was  influenced  by 
others  to  do  it!     Fine  inspiration. 

Elder  White  was  well  aware  of  how  she  was  influenced  by 
others  to  see  and  write  as  they  impressed  her  to  do.  Hence 
he  was  very  jealous  of  having  leading  men  talk  anything  to 
her  alone  opposing  his  views,  for  he  feared  she  would  then 
have  a  revelation  favoring  them  and  opposing  him  as  indeed 
she  did  towards  the  last.  Thus  he  wrote  me:  "The  pressure 
has  been  terribly  hard  on  my  poor  wife.  She  has  been  im- 
pressed very  much  by  Elders  Butler  and  Haskell."  Again: 
'  'I  think  my  wife  has  been  more  severe  than  the  Lord  really 
required  her  to  be  in  some  cases.  Satan  has  taken  great  ad- 
vantage. *  *  ^  Elders  Butler  and  Haskel  have  had  an 
influence  over  her  that  I  hope  to  see  broken.  It  has  nearly 
ruined  her.  These  men  must  not  be  supported  by  our  peo- 
ple to  do  as  they  have  done."  James  White,  Battle  Creek, 
May  25,  1881.  That  shows  the  confidence  which  her  own 
husband  had  in  her  revelations. 

THE   PHILOSOPHY  OF  MRS.    WHITE'S  VISIONS. 

Th€  proof  is  abundant  that  Mrs.  White's  visions  are 
merely  the  result  of  nervous  disease,  a  complication  of 
hysteria,  catalepsy  and  ecstacy.  That  she  honestly  believes 
in  them  herself,  I  do  not  doubt.  I  have  personally  known 
four  other  women,  aU  Seventh-Day  xldventists,  who  likewise 
had  visions.     All  were  sincere  Christians,  and  fully  believed 


162  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

in  their  own  visions.  But  all  were  sickly,  nervous  females, 
and  hysterical.  Not  being  encouraged  in  them,  but  opposed 
by  their  ministers,  they  finally  gave  them  up.  In  every  age 
such  cases  have  been  numerous,  of  whom  a  few,  like  Mrs. 
Southcott,  Mrs.  Ann  Lee  and  Mrs.  White,  have  become 
noted  for  awhile. 

Medical  books  and  cyclopedias,  under  the  words  ^'hys- 
teria," "catalepsy"  and  ''ecstacy,"  give  a  complete  descrip- 
tion of  Mrs.  White's  case,  as  stated  by  herself  and  husband. 
This  anyone  may  see  by  one  day's  study.  My  space  will 
allow  me  to  give  but  a  few  points. 

1.  The  sex — a  female.  "The  vast  preponderance  ol 
hysteria  in  the  female  sex  has  given  rise  to  its  name. "  Kay- 
nold's  System  of  Medicine,  article,  "Hysteria."  So  say  all 
the  authorities.     This  fits  Mrs.  White,  a  female. 

2.  The  age.  "Hysteria  is  infinitely  more  common 
among  females,  beginning  usually  from  fifteen  to  eighteen 
or  twenty  years  of  age."  Theory  and  Practice  of  Medicine, 
by  Koberts,  page  399.  "In  the  female  sex,  hysteria  usually 
commences  at  or  about  the  time  of  puberty,  i.  e. ,  between 
twelve  and  eighteen  years  of  age."  Kaynold's  System  of 
Medicine,  article,  Hysteria.  Here  again  it  exactly  fits  the 
case  of  Mrs  White.  She  had  her  first  vision  at  the  age  of 
seventeen.  See  Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  page  62.  "Notwith- 
standing this  mode  of  life,  their  health  does  not  materially 
deteriorate."  Johnson's  Cyclopedia,  article.  Hysteria.  So 
with  Mrs.  White.  She  has  gradually  improved  in  health 
and  her  visions  have  as  gradually  ceased.  At  first  she 
had  visions  almost  daily,  but  they  have  grown  less  fre- 
quent as  she  grew  older  and  healthier,  till  after  about 
forty-five  years  of  age,  since  which  time  she  has  not  aver- 
aged one  in  five  years,  and  even  these  are  short  and  light, 
till  now  she  has  ceased  entirely  to  have  them.  Now  read 
this;     "Hysteria  generally  attacks  women  from  the  age  of 


MES.    WHITE  AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  163 

puberty  to  the  decline  of  the  peculiar  functions  of  her  sex." 
Johnson's  Cyclopedia  article,  Hysteria.  Mrs.  White's  case 
again,  exactly. 

3.  The  cause.  Hysteria,  catalepsy,  epilepsy  and  ecstacy 
are  all  nervous  diseases,  which  sometimes  co-exist  or  alter- 
nate or  blend  together  so  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  them. 
The  causes  noted  are:  *'l.  Mental  disturbance,  especially 
emotional;  for  example,  a  sudden  fright,  prolonged  grief  or 
anxiety.  *2.  Physical  influences  affecting  the  brain,  as  a 
hlow  ov fall  on  the  head. ^^  Theory  and  Practice  of  Medi- 
cine, Roberts,  page  393.  *'In  ten  of  my  cases  the  disease 
was  due  to  reflex  causes,  which  consisted  in  six  cases  of  in- 
juries to  the  head."  Fundamental  Nervous  Disease,  Putzel, 
page  ^Q.  This  is  Mrs.  AVhite  again,  exactly.  At  the  age  of 
nine  she  received  a  terrible  blow  on  the  face,  which  broke  her 
nose  and  nearly  killed  her.  She  was  unconscious  for  three 
weeks.  See  her  life  in  Testimony,  Vol.  I,  pages  9-10.  This 
shock  to  her  nervous  system  was  the  real  cause  of  all  the 
visions  she  afterwards  had. 

4.  Always  weakly  and  [sickly.  *'Most  hysterical 
persons  are  out  of  health."  Theory  and  Practice  of 
Medicine,  Roberts,  page  404.  "Fainting  fits,  palpitation  of 
the  heart  appear  very  frequently  and  are  sometimes  so 
severe  that  persons  affected  with  them  seem  to  be  dying. " 
Encyclopedia  Am'^ricana,  article.  Hysteria.  Now  read  the 
life  of  Mrs.  While,  and  she  tells  it  over  and  over,  times 
without  number,  about  fainting  frequently,  pain  at  the  heart, 
and  about  being  so  sick  that  she  expected  to  die.  And  it  is 
remarkable  that  most  of  her  visions  were  immediately  pre- 
ceded by  one  of  these  fainting  death  spells.  This  shows 
plainly  that  they  are  the  result  of  nervous  weakness.  She 
says:  "My  feelings  were  unusually  sensitive."  Testi- 
monies Vol.  I,  page  12.  Now  read  this:  "Women  *  *  * 
whose  nervous  system  is  extremely  sensitive,  are  the  most 


164  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

subject  to  hysterical  affections,"  Encyclopedia  Americana, 
article,  Hysteria.     An  exact  fit. 

BIRS.    white's  physical   CONDITION  AS  WRITTEN  BY  HERSELF 
IN   TESTIMONY,    VOL.    I. 

When  nine  years  old  a  girl  hit  her  on  the  nose  with  a 
stone,  broke  her  nose,  and  nearly  killed  her.  Page  9.  "I 
lay  in  a  stupor  for  three  weeks."  Page  10.  ''I  was  re- 
duced almost  to  a  skeleton."  Page  11.  '*My  health  seemed 
to  be  hopelessly  impaired."  Page  12.  "My  nervous  system 
was  prostrated."  Page  13.  Here  was  the  origin  of  her 
hysteria  of  after  years.  In  this  condition  she  ' '  listened  to 
the  startling  announcement  that  Christ  was  coming  in  1843." 
Page  14.  * 'These  words  kept  ringing  in  my  ears;  'the 
great  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand.'"  Page  15.  ''I  fre- 
quently attended  the  meetings  and  believed  that  Jesus  was 
soon  to  come."  Page  22.  Of  her  impression  of  hell  she 
says:  ''My  imagination  would  be  so  wrought  upon  that  the 
perspiration  would  start."  Page  24.  "I  feared  that  I 
would  lose  my  reason."  Page  25.  At  one  time  she  did 
become  insane  for  two  weeks  as  she  writes  herself.  Spirit- 
5'al  Gifts,  Vol.  II,  page  51.  She  continues:  "My  health 
w^s  very  poor."  Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  page  55.  It  was 
thought  that  she  could  live  but  a  few  days.  Then  it  was  she 
had  her  first  vision,  really  a  fit.  Page  58.  "I  was  but  seven- 
teen years  of  age,  small  and  fraiL"  Page  62.  "My  strength 
wus  taken  away,"  and  angels  talk  with  her.  Page  64.  "My 
friends  thought  I  could  not  live.  *  *  *  Immediately 
taken  off  in  vision."  Page  67.  Notice  that  her  visions 
happen  when  she  is  very  sick  !  This  tells  the  story ;  they 
are  the  result  of  her  physical  weakness.  If  it  was  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  why  didn't  God  send  it  when  she  was 
well?    Why  not? 

"I  often  fainted  like  one  dead."    The  next  day  she  was 


ME8.    WHITE  AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  115 

well  and  '*rode  thirty-eight  miles."  Page  80.  This  is 
characteristic  of  hysterical  females,  as  all  know  who  have 
seen  them.  They  are  just  dying  one  hour  and  all  well  the 
next.  Mrs.  White  has  gone  through  that  a  thousand  times. 
She  is  just  dying,  is  prayed  for,  is  healed  by  God,  and  all 
well  in  a  few  minutes.  In  a  few  da3's  she  goes  right  over 
it  again.  But  if  God  heals  her,  why  don't  she  stay  healed  ? 
This  used  to  bother  me.  When  Jesus  healed  a  man,  did  he 
have  to  go  back  and  be  healed  over  again  every  few  days  ? 
She  goes  on:  "I  fainted  under  the  burden.  Some  feared  I 
was  dying.  *  *  *  I  was  soon  lost  to  earthly  things" — 
had  a  vision.  Page  86.  Again:  "I  fainted.  Prayer  was 
oflfered  for  me  and  I  was  blessed  and  taken  off  in  vision." 
Page  88.  There  you  have  it,  the  same  old  story.  It  is 
simply  her  hysterical  imagination,  nothing  more.  Next 
page.  "I  fainted  *  *  *  taken  off  in  vision."  So  she 
goes  on  all  through  her  book.  Says  the  Encyclopedia  Ameri- 
cana, article.  Hysteria:  * 'Fainting  fits,  palpitation  of  the 
heart  appear  very  frequently  and  are  sometimes  so  severe 
that  persons  afflicted  with  them  seem  to  be  dying."  MikS. 
White  exactly. 

On  page  after  page  the  same  story  is  repeated  by  herself. 
In  the  account  of  her  last  vision,  Jau;  3,  1875,  she  was  very 
sick  till  it  ended  in  a  vision.  Testimonies,  Vol.  Ill,  page  570. 
Dreadful  sick,  almost  dead,  then  a  vision — this  is  the  story, 
times  without  number,  from  her  own  pen.  That  tells  the 
story.     The  vision  is  the  result  of  her  physical  weakness. 

5.  Visions  in  public.  ''As  a  rule  a  fit  of  hysteria  occurs 
when  other  persons  are  present,  and  never  comes  on  during 
sleep. "  Theory  and  Practice  of  Medicine,  by  Roberts,  page 
401.  Most  of  her  visions  occur  in  public,  and  generally 
while  she  is  very  sick,  or  when  praying  or  speaking 
earnestly.  This  was  the  case  with  her  first  vision.  Spiritual 
Gifts,  Vol.  I,  page  30.     So,  again,  on  pages  37,  48,  51,  62, 


156  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

83,  and  many  more,  she  has  her  visions  in  the  presence  of 
many.  I  do  not  know  that  she  ever  hud  a  vision  while 
alone. 

INCLINATION   TO   EXAGGERATE   AND  DECEIVE. 

6.  All  medical  books  state  that  hysterical  persons  are 
given  to  exaggeration  and  deception.  The  inclination  is 
irresistible.  Nothing  can  break  them  of  it.  Gurnsey's 
Obstetrics,  article  Hysteria,  says:  "Such  persons  entertain 
their  hearers  with  marvelous  tales  of  the  greatness  and 
exploits  of  their  past  lives,  -x-  *  ^  These "  accounts  are 
uttered  with  an  air  of  sincerity  well  calculated  to  deceive 
the  honest  listener,  and  such  unbridled  license  of  the  imagin- 
ation and  total  obliviousness  in  regard  to  the  truth,  which 
are  vulgarly  attributed  to  an  entire  want  of  principle  and 
the  most  inordinate  vanity,  are  in  reality  due  to  that  morbid 
condition  of  the  female  organism  which  is  designated  by  the 
comprehensive  term  hysteria." 

Mrs.  White  is  always  telling  what  great  things  she  has  done. 
The  deception  which  she  so  often  practices,  and  which  I  have 
witnessed  in  her  myself,  is  here  accounted  for  on  principles 
which  do  not  impeach  the  moral  character,  and  I  am  glad  to 
accept  the  explanation. 

7.  Does  not  breathe.  *  'Stoppage  of  respiration  usually 
complete."  "Generally  appears  to  hold  his  breath."  Rob- 
erts' Theory  and  Practice  of  Medicine,  page  393-394.  Elder 
White,  describing  her  condition  in  vision,  says:  "She  does 
not  breathe."  Life  Incidents,  page  272.  They  always  refer 
to  this  fact  with  great  confidence  as  proof  of  the  supernatural 
in  her  visions;  but  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  common  in  these 
diseases. 

8.  Importance  of  self.  '  'There  is  a  prevailing  belief  in 
the  importance  of  self,  and  the  patient  thinks  that  she  differs 
from  every   other  human  being."    Raynold's  System  of 


MRS.  WHITE  AND  HER  REVELATIONS.        15? 

Medicine,  article  Hysteria.  Mrs.  White  to  a  hair.  Hear 
her  laud  herself:  "It  is  God,  and  not  an  erring  mortal,  who 
has  spoken."  *'God  has  laid  upon  my  husband  and  m3^self 
a  special  work."  "God  has  appointed  us  to  a  more  trying 
work  than  he  has  others."  Testimonies,  Vol.  HI,  pages  257, 
258,  260.  I  have  known  her  nearly  thirty  years,  and  I  never 
knew  her  to  make  confession  of  a  single  sin  or  evil  in  all  that 
time,  not  she.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  ridicule  the  Pope's 
claim  to  infallibility  but  they  themselves  are  bowing  to  the 
authority  of  a  woman  who  makes  higher  claims  to  infalli- 
bility than  ever  pope  or  prophet  did.  Space  will  not 
allow  me  to  fill  out  every  particular  of  her  experience 
by  quotations  from  medical  works  compared  with  her  own 
statements;  but  even  these  given  above  are  sufficient  to 
show  the  nature  and  philosophy  of  her  attacks.  They  are 
the  result  of  nervous  disease,  precisely  the  same  as  has 
been  often  seen  in  the  case  of  thousands  of  other  sickly 
females. 

TESTIIVIONY   OF   THREE   PHYSICIANS. 

9.  Dr.  Fairfield  was  brought  up  a  Seventh-Day  Ad- 
ventist;  was  for  years  a  physician  in  their  Sanitarium 
at  Battle  Creek.  He  has  had  the  best  opportunity  to  observe 
Mrs.  White.  He  writes:  "Battle  Creek,  Mich.,  Dec.  28, 
1887.  Dear  Sir: — You  are  undoubtedly  right  in  ascribing 
Mrs.  E.  G.  White's  so-called  visions  to  disease.  It  has  been 
my  opportunity  to  observe  her  case  a  good  deal,  covering 
quite  a  period  of  years,  which,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  her 
history  from  the  beginning,  gave  me  no  chance  to  doubt  her 
("divine")  attacks  to  be  simply  hysterical  trances.  Age  itself 
has  almost  cured  her. 

W.  J.  Fairfield,  M.  D." 

Dr.  Wm.  Russell,  long  a  Seventh-Day  Adventist,  and  a 
chief  physician  in  the  Sanitarium,  WTote  July  12th,  1869, 
that  he  had  made  up  his  mind  some  time  in  the  past,   "that 


158  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

Mrs.  White's  visions  were  the  result  of  a  diseased  organiza- 
tion or  condition  of  the  brain  or  nervous  system."  "When 
giving  to  a  conference  at  Pilot  Grove,  Iowa,  1865,  an 
account  of  her  visit  at  Dr.  Jackson's  health  institute,  she 
stated  that  the  doctor,  upon  a  medical  examination,  pro- 
nounced her  a  subject  of  hysteria."  Mrs.  White's  Claims 
Examined,  page  76. 

Here  is  the  testimony  of  three  physicians,  who  have  per- 
sonally examined  Mrs.  White.  She  joined  the  Millerites  in 
their  great  excitement  of  1843-44.  In  their  meetings  she 
often  fainted  from  excitement.  In  the  enthusiasm  and 
fanaticism  of  the  time  many  had  various  "gifts,"  visions, 
trances,  etc.  She  drank  deeply  of  their  spirit.  The  grief 
and  disappointment  of  the  passing  of  the  set  time  were  too 
much  for  her  feeble  condition.  Says  Dr.  Eobcrts:  "The 
exciting  cause  of  the  first  hysterical  fit  is  generally  some 
powerful  and  sudden  emotional  disturbance. "  "Sometimes 
the  attack  is  preceded  by  disappointment,  fear,  violent,  ex- 
citing, or  even  religious  emotions."  Library  of  Universal 
Knowledge,  article  Catalepsy.  Just  her  case  in  18 i4,  in  the 
great  excitement  and  disappointment  she  then  met. 

HAS   VISIONS   OF   HEAVEN,    ANGELS,    ETC. 

Dr.  George  B.  Wood's  "Practice  of  Medicine,"  page  721 
of  Vol.  II,  in  treating  of  mental  disorders,  and  explaining  the 
cause  and  phenomena  of  trances,  says: 

"Ecstacy  is  an  affection  in  which,  with  a  loss  of  conscious- 
ness of  existing  circumstances,  and  insensibility  to  impres- 
sion from  without,  there  is  an  apparent  exaltation  of  the 
intellectual  or  emotional  functions,  as  if  the  individual  were 
raised  into  a  different  nature,  or  different  sphere  of  exist- 
ence. The  patient  appears  wrapped  up  in  some  engrossing 
thought  or  feeling,  with  an  expression  upon  his  countenance 
as  of  lofty  contemplations   or  ineffable  delight-     *     *     * 


MRS.    WHITE   AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  159 

Upon  recovering  from  the  spell,  the  patient  generally 
remembers  his  thoughts  and  feelings  more  or  less  accurately, 
and  sometimes  tells  of  wonderful  visions  that  he  has  seen, 
of  visits  to  the  regions  of  the  blessed,  of  ravishing  harmony 
and  splendor,  of  inexpressible  enjoyment  of  the  senses  or 
affections." 

A  person  perfectly  familiar  with  Mrs.  White  could  not 
have  described  her  visions  more  accurately.  Another  high 
medical  authority,  in  describing  ecstacy  and  catalepsy,  says: 
"It  often  happens  that  the  two  diseases  alternate  or  co-exist. 
In  ecstacy  the  limbs  are  motionless,  but  not  rigid.  The  eyes 
are  open,  the  pupils  fixed,  the  livid  lips  parted  in  smiles,  and 
the  arms  extended  to  embrace  the  beloved  vision.  The 
body  is  erect  and  raised  to  its  utmost  height,  or  else  is  ex- 
tended at  full  length  in  recumbent  posture.  A  peculiar 
radiant  smile  illuminates  the  countenance,  and  the  whole  as- 
pect and  attitude  is  that  of  intense  mental  exaltation.  Some- 
times the  patient  is  silent,  the  mind  being  apparently  ab- 
sorbed in  meditation,  or  in  the  contemplation  of  some  beati- 
fic vision.  Sometimes  there  is  mystical  speaking  or  pro- 
phesying, or  singing,  or  the  lips  may  be  moved  without  any 
sound  escaping.  *  *  *  LTsually  there  is  complete  insen- 
sibility to  external  impressions.  Ecstacy  is  often  associated 
with  religious  monomania.  It  was  formerly  quite  common 
among  the  Inmates  of  convents,  and  is  now  not  unfrequently 
met  with  at  camp-meetings  and  other  gatherings  of  a  similar 
nature.  Many  truly  devout  people  are  extatics."  G. 
Durant,  M.  D. ,  Ph.  D. ,  member  of  the  American  Medical 
Association,  Fellow  of  the  New  York  Academy  of  Medicine, 
etc. ,  etc. ,  recipient  of  several  medals,  etc. 

This  is  Mrs.  White's  case  very  clearly.  Hundreds  of 
similar  ones  have  occurred  in  every  age  and  are  constantly 
occurring  now.  The  sad  part  of  it  is  that  so  many  honest 
souls  are  deluded  into  receiving  all  this  as  a  divine  revelation. 


160       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 
WHAT  HARM  DOES  SHE  DO? 

Much  in  many  ways  : 

1.  It  is  an  error  and  a  deception. 

2.  She  deceives  herself  and  others. 

3.  She  teaches  false  doctrines. 

4.  She  has  a  harsh,  uncharitable  spirit,  and  begets  this  in 
all  her  followers. 

6.  She  builds  up  an  isolated  sect,  and  thus  destroys  all 
their  influence  for  good. 

6.  Her  teachings  make  her  people  narrow,  bigoted,  and 
gloomy.     Thus  she  blasts  the  peace  of  thousands  of  souls. 

7.  It  leads  her  advocates  to  deceive.  Being  afraid  that 
it  will  hurt  them  in  new  places,  if  it  is  known  in  what  light 
they  really  hold  her  visions,  they  keep  them  back  as  long  as 
they  can  and  then  they  deny  that  it  is  a  matter  of  import- 
ance with  them.  This  is  false  and  deceptive,  for  they  hold 
faith  in  her  visions  to  be  as  important  as  keeping  the  Sab- 
bath, and  they  hold  her  visions  to  be  as  sacred  as  the 
Bible. 

8.  To  defend  her  mistakes  and  errors,  both  she  and  her 
apologists  have  to  deny  the  plainest  facts  and  resort  to  argu- 
ments very  questionable. 

9.  To  defend  her  errors,  they  compare  them  to  supposed 
errors  in  the  Bible,  and  thus  destroy  faith  in  that  book. 

10.  She  rules  her  whole  people  with  a  rod  of  iron,  and 
dictates  to  them  in  everything,  even  the  smallest  and  most 
private  affairs  of  family  life.  She  boasts  that  her  work  ''is 
to  come  down  to  the  minutiae  of  life."  Testimonies,  Vol. 
II,  page  608.  With  this  idea  she  meddles  with  everything 
public  and  private,  and  all  the  affairs  of  families,  till  it  be- 
comes, to  a  man  of  spirit,  an  intolerable  bore.  She  meddles 
between  husband  and  wife,  parents  and  children,  breaks  up 
marriage  engagements  which  do  not  suit  her,  dictates  to  aL^ 
her  followers  what  they  shall  eat,  how,  and  when;  the  cut 


MBS.    WHITE  AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  161 

and  color  of  their  dress;  their  business,  the  disposition  of 
their  means,  etc.,  etc.  In  proof  of  this  let  a  person  read 
any  of  her  "Testimonies,"  for  they  are  all  full  of  it. 

11.  Her  severity  and  harshness  have  driven  many  to  de- 
spair, others  to  back-slide,  and  others  out  of  the  church.  I 
can  name  many  individuals  and  families  whose  happiness 
she  has  blasted.  She  broke  the  heart  and  darkened  the  life 
of  my  first  wife  by  her  cruel  words  to  her.  Any  one  who 
dares  to  get  in  her  way  must  either  succumb,  be  crushed,  or 
driven  out.  The  effort  to  bind  her  visions  as  inspired  upon 
the  faith  and  consciences  of  the  whole  denomination  has  pro- 
duced continual  wrangling,  division,  and  much  bitter  feeling, 
right  among  themselves  for  the  last  sixty  years.  Families, 
churches  and  conferences  have  been  divided  over  them,  while 
hundreds,  yes,  thousands,  have  been  driven  from  them  because 
they  would  not  accept  Mrs.  White's  visions  as  inspired. 

12.  They  produce  doubts  and  infidelity.  "WTien  those  who 
have  been  led  to  firmly  believe  them  finally  come  to  see 
that  they  have  been  deceived,  then  they  are  in  danger  of 
losing  faith  in  everything  and  so  becoming  out  and  out  in- 
fidels, or  at  least  skeptical.  Large  numbers  have  gone  to 
ruin  that  w^ay  whom  I  have  personally  known.  Some  have 
gone  to  the  Spiritualists,  some  to  the  Free  Thinkers,  some 
to  the  Shakers,  some  to  the  Mormons,  and  some  to  the 
world.     They  have  nearly  driven  Mrs.    White  herself  into 

Jnfidelity.  Here  are  her  own  words:  "In  the  night  I  have 
awakened  my  husband,  saying,  'I  am  afraid  that  I  shall  be- 
come an  infidel.' "  Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  page  597.  How  un- 
like the  apostles  that  sounds. 

MRS.    WHITE   BECOMES     RICH. 

There  is  no  example  in  the  Bible  where  a  prophet  took  ad- 
vantage of  his  inspiration  to  enrich  himself.  They  generally 
worked  hard,  had  little,  and  died  poor.     But  Mrs.  White 


162  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

began  poverty  poor.  She  says :  "  We  entered  upon  our 
work  penniless."  Testimonies,  Yol.  I,  page  Y5.  But  as 
soon  as  they  became  leaders,  they  managed  to  supply  them- 
selves well.  Since  I  knew  them,  thirty  years  ago, they  have 
had  an  abundance,  and  have  used  means  for  themselves 
lavishly.  They  would  always  have  the  best  and  plenty  of 
it.  Everywhere  they  went  they  required  to  be  waited  upon 
in  the  most  slavish  manner.  Mrs.  White  dresses  very 
richly,  often  is  furnished  women  to  wait  on  her,  and  all 
their  time  and  expenses  are  paid  by  the  conference. 

When  Elder  White  died  he  left  a  large  fortune.  He  was 
a  sharp  business  man,  and  took  advantage  of  his  position 
to  benefit  himself  and  family,  and  she  aided  him  in  it  by 
her  revelations.  How  different  from  Mr.  Moody !  Mrs. 
White  is  eighty  years  old,  is  worth  thousands,  has  a  large 
income,  has  not  a  single  soul  dependent  upon  her,  says  that 
time  is  about  to  end,  urges  all  to  cut  down  their  possessions, 
yet  takes  large  royalty  on  all  her  numerous  books  and 
seems  as  eager  for  money  as  others.     How  is  this  ? 

The  last  year  I  was  with  them  she  received  $18  per  week, 
was  furnished  two  women  to  wait  on  her  and  all  traveling 
expenses  paid.  The  same  year  they  sold  20,000  copies  of 
Great  Controversy  on  which  she  received  a  royalty  of 
$2,500  besides  an  income  from  all  her  other  works.  Her 
inspiration  has  paid  her  well  financially. 

Take  an  example  or  two  of  how  she  used  her  revelations 
to  make  money  :  In  1868  Elder  White  had  on  hand  several 
thousand  dollars'  worth  of  old  books  which  were  dead  prop- 
erty, as  they  were  not  selling  and  were  growing  out  of  date. 
He  hit  on  a  plan  to  raise  a  "  book  fund  ■ '  for  the  free  distribu- 
tion of  books  and  tracts.  This  fund  he  used  to  buy  out  his 
and  her  old  books  !  When  the  money  did  not  come  fast 
enough,  she  had  a  revelation  about  it  thus :  "  Why  do  not 
our  brethren  send  in  their  pledges  on  the  book  and  tract 


MRS.    WHITE  AND  HER  REYELATIONS.  168 

fund  more  liberally  ?  And  why  do  not  our  ministers  take 
hold  of  this  work  in  earnest?  ^-  *  *  \Ye  shall  not  hold 
our  peace  upon  this  subject.  Our  people  will  come  up  to 
the  work.  The  means  will  come.  And  we  would  say  to 
those  who  are  poor  and  want  books,  send  in  your  orders. 

•5f  *  *  -yYe  ^[[i  send  you  a  package  of  books  contain- 
ing four  volumes  of  Spiritual  Gifts,  How  to  Live,  Appeal  to 
Youth,  Appeal  to  Mothers,  Sabbath  Headings  and  the  two 
large  charts,  with  key  of  explanation,  *  *  *  and  charge 
the  fund  four  dollars."  Testimonies,  Vol.  I,  page  689. 
Every  one  of  these  books  was  their  own.  The  money  came 
and  they  pocketed  it  all.     I  was  there  and  know. 

Mrs.  White  now  has  forty  inspired  books.  To  sell 
these,  every  possible  effort  is  made  through  every  channel. 
She  is  constantly  urging  it  by  all  her  inspired  authority. 
Hear  her:  "The  volumes  of  Spirit  of  Prophecy  and  also  the 
Testimonies  should  be  introduced  into  every  Sabbath  keep- 
ing family.  ^  ^  ^  Let  them  bo  worn  out  in  being  read 
by  all  the  neighbors.  ^  ^  ^  Prevail  upon  them  to  buy 
copies.  *  ^  ^''  Light  so  precious,  coming  from  the  throne 
of  God,  is  hid  under  a  bushel.  God  will  make  his  people 
responsible  for  this  neglect."  Testimonies,  Vol.  IV,  pages 
390,  391.  So,  of  course,  her  books  must  be  pushed  and  sold 
while  she  makes  money.     It  pays  to  be  inspired  ! 

WHY   I   ONCE   BELIEVED   MKS.    WHITE    INSPIRED. 

1  once  accepted  Mrs.  White's  claim  to  inspiration  for  the 
same  reason  that  most  of  her  followers  do.  I  first  accepted 
the  Sabbath  and  then  other  points  of  the  faith  till  I  came  to 
believe  it  all. 

2.  Once  among  and  of  them  I  found  all  stating  in  strong 
terms  that  Mrs.  White  was  inspired  of  God.  I  supposed 
they  knew,  and  so  took  their  word  for  it;  and  that  is  what 
aU  the  others  do  as  they  come  in,  deny  it  as  they  may. 


164:       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVBNTISM  RENOUNCED. 

3.  I  soon  found  that  her  revelations  were  so  connected 
with  the  whole  history  and  belief  of  that  church  that  I  could 
not  consistently  separate  them  any  more  than  a  person  could 
be  a  Mormon  and  not  believe  in  Joseph  Smith.  I  believed 
the  other  doctrines  so  firmly  that  1  swallowed  the  visions 
with  the  rest,  and  that  is  what  all  do. 

4.  When  I  began  to  have  suspicions  about  the  visions  I 
found  the  pressure  so  strong  that  I  feared  to  express  them, 
or  even  to  admit  them  to  myself.  All  said  such  doubts 
were  of  the  Devil  and  w^ould  lead  to  a  rejection  of  the  truth 
and  then  to  ruin.  So  I  dared  not  entertain  them  nor  investi- 
gate the  matter;  and  this  is  the  way  it  is  with  others. 

5.  I  'saw  that  all  who  expressed  any  doubts  about  the 
visions  were  immediately  branded  as  "rebels,"  as  "in  the 
dark,"  "led  by  Satan,"  "infidels,"  etc. 

6.  Having  no  faith  in  any  other  doctrine  or  people,  I  did 
not  know  what  to  do  nor  where  to  go.  So  I  tried  to  believe 
the  visions  and  go  along  just  as  thousands  of  them  do  whep 
I'eally  they  are  in  doubt  about  them  all  the  time. 

Her  last  Testimony  just  out  reveals  the  fact  that  there  is 
a  w^ide-spread  efibrt  among  her  people  to  modify  her  high 
claims.  She  protests  vehemently  and  warns  them  to  keep 
their  hands  off.  Sooner  or  later  there  must  be  a  revolt 
against  her  high  claims. 

The  following  from  Chambers'  Encyclopedia,  Article  South- 
cot  t,  is  also  applicable  to  Mrs.  White  and  her  followers: 
' '  The  history  of  Joanna  Southcott  herself  has  not  much  in  it 
that  is  marvelous;  but  the  influence  which  she  exercised  ovei 
others  may  well  maybe  deemed  so,  and  the  infatuation  of  her 
followers  is  hard  to  be  understood,  particularly  when  it  is 
considered  that  some  of  them  were  men  of  some  intelligence 
and  of  cultivated  mind.  Probably  the  secret  of  her  influence 
lay  in  the  fact  that  the  poor  creature  was  in  earnest  about 
her  own  delusions.     So  few  people  in  the  world  are  realij 


MES.  WHITE  AND  HER  REVELATIONS.  165 

SO  that  they  are  always  liable  to  be  enslaved  by  others 
who  have  convictions  of  any  kind,  however  grotesque. 
On  her  death-bed  Joanna  said :  '  If  I  ^ave  been  misled,  it 
has  been  by  some  spirit,  good  or  evil.'  *  *  *  Poor 
Joanna  never  suspected  that  the  spirit  which  played  such 
vagaries  was  her  own." 

Just  so  of  Mrs.  White.  It  is  marvelous  that  with  all  the 
proof  of  her  failures  intelligent  men  are  still  led  by  her. 
But  the  case  of  Joanna,  of  Ann  Lee,  and  others,  helps  us 
to  solve  this  one.  All  have  earnestly  believed  in  their 
own  inspiration,  and  this  alone  has  convinced  others. 


The  Adventists'  Addition  to  the  Bible 

"  The  Bible  and  the  Bible  Only,  Eddy's   Science   and  Health  to  tell 

as  a  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice,"  is  what  it  means. 

the  Protestant  watchword  for  which  Seventh  Day  Adventists  have  the 

saints  have  fought  and  martyrs  died.  Bible    and — and — something   else — 

The  Catholic  church  has  the  Bible  Mrs.  White's  revelations  to  interpret 

and — and — something  else — an  infal-  it. 

lible  Pope  to  interpret  if.  Each  of  the  above  churches  has 

The  Swedenborg  church  has  the  done  exactly  the  same  thing,  namely, 

Bible    and — and — something   else —  has  put  right  along  with  the  good 

Swedenborg's  revelation  to  interpret  old  Bible  another  interpreter  to  tell 

it.  what  that    old    Bible    really  means. 

The   Shakers  have   the  Bible  and  Whatever  these  new  interpreters  say 

—  and — something     else — Mother  it  means,  all  their  members  must  ac- 

Ann  Lee's  revelation  to  interpret  it.  cept  as  true  without  further  question. 

The  Mormons  have  the  Bible  and  Dare  a  Catholic  dispute  the  Pope's 

— and — something  else — Joe  Smith's  interpretation,  or  a   Mormon  dispute 

revelations  to  interpret  it.  Smith's,  or  an  Adventist  dispute  Mrs. 

Christian  Scientists  have  the  Bible  White's     interpretation  ?      No,     in- 

and  —  and  —  something  else  —  Mrs.  deed. 


CHAPTER  DL 

THE  NATTTHE  OF  THE  SABBATH  COMMANDMENT. 

That  the  Sabbath  of  the  decalogue  was  partly  moral  and 
partly  ceremonial,  or  positive,  in  its  nature  has  been  the 
doctrine  of  the  church  as  taught  by  its  best  theologians  in 
all  ages.  Take  a  few  examples  out  of  scores  that  could  be 
given.  Watson's  Theological  Institutes,  the  great  Meth 
odist  standard,  says:  *'  But  as  the  command  is  partly  posi- 
tive and  partly  moral,  it  may  have  circumstances  which  are 
capable  of  being  altered  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  moral 
principles  on  which  it  rests."  Vol.  II,  page  511.  So  Scott's 
Commentary  on  Ex.  20:  8-10  says:  ''The  separation  of  a 
portion  of  our  time  to  the  immediate  service  of  God  is 
doubtless  of  moral  obligation.  *  *  *  gy^  f]^Q  exact 
proportion,  as  well  as  the  particular  day,  may  be  considered 
as  a  positive  institution." 

The  moral  basis  of  the  Sabbath  is  readily  manifest.  That 
man  should  devote  some  part  of  his  time  to  the  special  ser- 
vice and  worship  of  God  is  reasonable,  and  we  would  natu- 
rally expect  that  the  Lord  would,  in  some  way,  designate 
such  time,  just  as  he  did  do  in  the  Sabbath  precept. 

Experience  proves  that  man's  physical  nature  requires  a 
day  of  rest  about  as  often  as  one  in  seven.  Many  experi- 
ments have  been  tried  and  careful  observations  made,  all 
showing  that  both  men  and  beasts  will  accomplish  more  work 
in  a  given  time,  do  it  in  a  better  manner  and  preserve  better 
health  by  resting  every  seventh  day  than  they  will  by  labor- 
ing continuously.     This  is  the  testimony  of  business  men 

(166) 


THE  NATUEE  OF  THE   SABBATH  COMMANDMENT.        167 

and  of  eminent  physicians.  Hence  the  Sabbath  rest  had  its 
foundation  in  nature  itself.  The  mind  also  requires  a  day 
of  rest  as  regularly  as  the  body.  Constant  thought  and 
mental  application  is  ruinous  to  the  mind.  This  has  been 
proved  in  the  case  of  students,  lawyers,  business  men,  etc. 
Socially  and  religiously,  the  weekly  rest  day  is  of  the  ut- 
utmost  importance  to  man's  highest  good.  All  other  means 
combined  can  hardly  equ^l  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day 
for  the  purpose. 

Then  as  to  the  influence  of  the  church  and  its  power  for 
good,  its  hold  upon  its  own  members  and  upon  community, 
its  opportunity  to  teach  and  preach  the  gospel,  the  regular 
weekly  rest  day  is  its  strong  hold  as  all  well  know.  Hence, 
if  ever  a  law  of  God  had  a  moral  basis,  the  Sabbath  com- 
mandment has.  *  *  *  "The  Sabbath  was  made  for 
man"  because  he  needed  it  physically,  mentally,  socially, 
morally  and  religiously.  Mr.  Gladstone  says:  "Sunday  is 
a  necessity  for  the  retention  of  man's  mind  and  of  a  man's 
frame  in  a  condition  to  discharge  his  duties." 

All  experience  shows  that  a  Sabbathless  community  is  a 
godless,  immoral,  and,  generally,  a  thriftless  community. 
Hence  he  is  an  enemy  of  society  and  of  religion  who  would 
break  down  the  restraints  of  such  a  weekly  rest  in  the  com- 
munity. So  we  say  that  the  Sabbath  law  rested  upon  a 
moral  basis  in  providing  a  weekly  Sabbath  for  the  nation  of 
Israel. 

THE   CEREMONIAL   SHDE   OF  THE   SABBATH. 

But  when  we  come  to  the  definite  day,  which  it  shall  be,  na- 
ture does  not  indicate  that.  All  the  benefits  above  mentioned 
would  be  secured  by  keeping  one  day  as  well  as  another. 
There  would  not  be  a  particle  of  difference  whichever  day 
was  selected.  Suppose  that  all  the  churches  would  change 
in  one  week  and  keep  Saturday  instead  of  Sunday,  what 


168       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  RENOUNCED. 

practical  difference  would  it  make  ?  None  at  all.  Physical 
rest,  mental  rest,  social  and  religious  privileges,  a  quiet  day, 
— all  that  can  be  secured  by  one  day  can  by  another,  so  far 
as  the  day  itself  is  concerned.  But  to  secure  the  greatest 
good  from  the  day,  all  should  rest  the  same  day.  Where 
this  is  not  done  contusion  and  evil  follows.  Hence,  the  law 
provided  that  all  must  rest  the  same  day.     Ex.  20:  8-11. 

God  has  marked  no  difference  in  the  nature  of  days  in 
themselves.  All  nature  goes  right  on  just  the  same  every 
day  alike.  We  see  nothing  in  one  day  of  the  week  which 
differs  from  another,  and  there  is  no  difference.  No  day  is 
holy  in  and  of  itself  and  by  its  own  nature.  The  learned 
Dr.  Edwards  says:  ^*No  identical  period  of  duration  is,  in 
itself,  intrinsically  holy."  Sabbath  Manual,  page  92.  In 
every  case  God  had  to  make  the  day  holy  by  a  special 
appointment.  The  same  appointment  of  some  other  day 
would  have  made  it  just  as  holy. 

Nor  does  nature  indicate  clearly  just  the  proportion  of 
time  to  be  used.  Hence  God's  example  of  six  days'  work 
and  the  seventh  of  rest  was  doubtless  given  as  a  model  for 
man  to  follow.  To  this  the  Lord  pointed  in  giving  the  Sab- 
bath  law.  Ex.  20.  And  this  divine  model  all  Christians 
now  follow  in  resting  on  the  Lord's  day  after  six  days'  work. 

Another  fact  which  Sabbatarians  overlook  is  that  God's 
act  of  resting  on  the  day  did  not  confer  any  holiness  upon 
it.  Gen.  2:3,  says:  "God  blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sanc- 
tified it  because  that  in  it  he  had  rested^  So  Ex.  20:  11. 
He  "rested  the  seventh  day,  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the 
Sabbath  day  and  hallowed  it."  First,God  rested  on  the  day, 
but  that  did  not  make  it  holy.  After  that  he  blessed  it  but 
still  it  was  not  holy  time.  Third,  he  hallowed  it,  made  it 
holy.  So  the  day  was  not  holy  in  itself  nor  did  God's  rest- 
ing on  it  make  it  holy. 

The  Lord  has  made  other  days  holy,  days  on  which  he 


THE   NATURE   OF  THE   SABBATH    COMMANDMENT         169 

never  rested.  The  day  of  atonement  was  as  noly  as  the 
weekly  Sabbath.  Thus:  "It  shall  be  an  holy  convocation 
unto  you.  *  *  *  And  whatsoever  soul  it  he  that  doeth 
any  work  in  that  same  day,  the  same  soul  will  I  destroy 
from  among  his  people.  Ye  shall  do  no  manner  of  work: 
*^  ^  *  It  shall  be  unto  you  a  Sabbath  of  rest. "  Lev.  23: 
27-32.  So  there  were  seven  of  these  yearly  holy  days. 
Elder  Smith,  Adventist,  says:  "The  word  Sabhath  means 
rest.  That  is  the  one  sole  idea  it  conveys,  first,  last,  and  all 
the  way  between, — cessation  from  labor,  rest.  Here  were 
seven  annual  days  on  which  there  was  to  be  an  entire  sus- 
pension of  labor.  Were  these  days  Sabbaths,  or  were  they 
not?  If  they  were  not,  can  any  one  tell  us  why  they 
were  not?"    What  Was  Nailed  to  the  Cross,  page  11. 

So,  then,  according  to  the  Bible  and  the  arguments  of 
the  Adventists  themselves,  diiferent  days  may  become  holy 
Sabbath  days  without  the  Lord's  resting  on  them  or  even 
blessing  them,  for  he  did  neither  to  these  days.  Further,  a 
day  which  was  once  a  holy  Sabbath  day,  so  holy  that  it  was 
death  to  work  on  it,  as  in  the  case  of  the  day  of  atonement, 
Lev.  23:  27-32,  may  cease  to  be  so  and  become  a  common 
working  day.  See  Col.  2:  16.  Even  Adventists  do  not 
keep  those  old  holy  days.  So,  then,  holiness  can  be  put 
upon  a  day,  taken  from  it,  or  changed  to  another  day.  It  is 
not  necessarily  a  permanent,  unchangeable  affair.  Let 
Sabbatarians  meditate  here  awhile.  More  still:  A  day 
once  appointed,  and  made  a  holy  Sabbath  day  by  God 
himself,  may  cease  to  be  such  and  become  even  hateful  to 
God.  Thus:  Isa.  1:  13-14,  "The  new  moons  and  Sab- 
baths, the  calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot  away  with;  it  is 
iniquity,  even  the  solemn  meeting,  Your  new  moons  and 
your  appointed  feasts  my  soul  hateth;  they  are  a  trouble 
unto  me;  lam  weary  to  bear  tlieray  All  these  holy  days 
God  himself  had  appointed,  but  see  how  he  hates  them  now. 


ItO  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Is  it  an}'  proof,  then,  that  a  particular  day  is  holy  now  be- 
■  cause  it  was  once  holy  ?     None  whatever. 

Notice  also  how  many  other  things  were  made  holy  by 
God's  appointment.  Under  the  law  we  read  of  "the  holy 
temple,"  "the  holy  hill,"  "the  holy  ark,"  "the  holy  instru- 
ments," "the  holy  vessels,"  "the  holy  water,"  "the  holy 
perfume,"  "the  holy  altar,"  "the  holy  veil,"  "the  holy 
linen  coat,"  "the  holy  ointment,"  "the  holy  nation,'*' 
"the  holy  Sabbath,"  etc.  Those  pertained  to  the  worship 
and  service  of  God  in  his  holy  temple^  which  was  "only 
a  shadow,"  "figure"  or  "type  of  the  true  temple" — the 
"spiritual  house"  of  Christ,  "his  body,  the  church." 
While  they  stood  as  types  they  were  "holy,"  and  no 
longer.  They  had  no  inherent  holiness,  but  were  made  holy 
by  the  command  of  God.  Law  and  Gospel,  page  43,  by  S. 
C.  Adams. 

Like  all  the  above  holy  things,  the  seventh  day  had 
no  holiness  in  itself.  It  had  to  be  "made"  so.  Mark  2: 
27.  But  moral  duties  are  not  made.  They  exist 
in  the  very  nature  of  things.  For  instance,  it  is  morally 
wrong  to  murder.  It  would  have  been  wrong  even  if  God 
had  given  no  command  against  it.  But  it  never  would  have 
been  wrong  to  work  on  the  seventh  day  unless  God  had 
given  a  commandment  to  keep  it.  So,  then,  the  sanctity  of 
the  day  does  not  rest  upon  the  nature  of  the  day  itself,  but, 
like  a  hundred  other  hallowed  things,  simply  upon  God's 
appointment,  which  may  be  altered  any  time  at  his  will. 

All  must  admit  that  this  commandment  does  difler  from 
those  which  are  admitted  to  be  wholly  moral.  No  one  could 
*  all  his  lifetime  live  in  open  violation  of  the  commandments 
against  idolatry,  blasphemy,  murder,  adultery,  stealing,  etc., 
and  yet  have  the  least  hope  of  heaven.  Yet  the  most  zealous 
Sabbatarian  will  admit  that  millions  of  devout  Christians 
have  lived  holy  lives  who  never  kept  the  seventh  day,  but 


THE   NATURE   OF  THE   SABBATH  COMMANDMENT.        171 

rested  on  Sunday  instead.  And  Sunday-keepers  will  admit 
that  those  who  keep  Saturday  instead  of  Sunday  are  Chris- 
tian people.  Now,  certainly,  one  or  the  other  of  these 
classes  does  not  keep  the  Sabbath  commandment,  if  the 
essential  thing  is  to  keep  the  particular  day.  Would  any 
seventh-day  man  recognize  as  a  Christian  any  person  who 
would  every  week  violate  the  letter  of  any  other  command- 
ment ?  No,  nor  would  he  excuse  him  on  any  plea  of  ignor- 
ance either.  Yet  they  will  freely  admit  that  thousands  right 
around  them  who  do  not  keep  the  Sabbath  commandment  as 
they  read  it,  are  yet  good  people  and  Christians.  So,  they 
themselves  being  judges,  this  commandment  does  differ  from 
the  others  in  some  way. 

WHAT  IS   A  CEREMONY? 

Adventists  claim  that  there  was  nothing  ceremonial  in  the 
decalogue  or  about  the  Sabbath.  Bui  let  us  consider  what 
a  ceremony  is.  Webster  says:  '^Ceremony.  Outward  rite; 
external  form  in  religion."  That  is  exactly  what  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Sabbath  was  in  Jewish  worship.  Do  not  Ad- 
ventists class  the  keeping  of  all  the  other  holy  days  as 
ceremonial?  Yes;  but  they  were  all  "holy  convocations," 
Lev.  23:  2,  like  the  seventh  day.  Kead  Elder  Smith's  own 
arguments  on  this  point.  He  says:  "Were  these  other 
days  which  were  exactly  like  that, — days  of  rest  and  con- 
vocation,— were  these  days  also  Sabbaths,  or  were  they 
not?"  What  Was  Nailed  to  the  Cross,  page  11.  Then  he 
argues  that  they  were  all  Sabbaths  like  the  seventh  day. 
Well,  then  if  the  keeping  of  these  was  a  ceremony,  and  a 
part  of  the  "ceremonial"  law,  then  the  same  is  true  of  the 
seventh  day. 

The  olxscrvance  of  the  Sabbath  on  a  particular  day  was  a 
ceremonial  service,  the  very  first  and  chief  of  all  their  "out- 
ward rites  and  externaHorms."    Thus,  Smith's  Dictionary 


172  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

of  the  Bible,  article,  Law  of  Moses,  under  the  term  "Cere* 
monial  Law,"  says:  "(3).  Holiness  of  Times,  (a)  Th(? 
Sabbath.  Ex.  20:  8-11.  (h)  The  Sabbatical  Year,  (c) 
Year  of  Jubilee,  (d)  The  Passover,  {e)  The  Feast  of 
Weeks.  (/")  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  {g)  Feast  of  Trumpets. 
(A)  Day  of  Atonement."  Thus  the  Sabbath  stands  at  the 
head  of  all  the  ceremonial  seasons.  God  himself  so  places 
it.  Lev.  23:  1-4:4.  "These  are  my  feasts:  Six  days  shall 
work  be  done,  but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath."  Then 
follow  in  order  all  the  holy  days  of  the  year,  the  Sabbath 
standing  first.  It  is  arranged  that  way  time  and  again, 
showing  it  is  so  designed.  Again,  Dr.  Smith  says:  "The 
Sabbath  was  the  keynote  to  a  scale  of  Sabbatical  observance 
consisting  of  itself,  the  seventh  month,  the  seventh  year, 
and  the  year  of  Jubilee." 

Adventists  argue  that  the  decalogue  covers  all  sins.  The 
greater  embraces  the  lesser,  they  say.  The  sixth  command 
prohibits  murder,  the  highest  crime  of  the  kind,  and  that 
embraces  and  so  foibids  all  lesser  sins  of  the  kind,  as  anger, 
quarreling,  malice,  hatred,  etc.  Well,  now,  let  them  try 
that  on  the  fourth  command  and  they  will  hit  a  truth 
which  ought  to  open  their  eyes,  viz. :  the  weekly  Sabbath, 
as  chief  and  head  of  all  holy  seasons  and  ceremonials,  was 
placed  there  to  represent  all  that  class  in  the  Jewish  law. 
Rev.  Dr.  Potts,  Methodist,  says:  "The  law  under  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  was  formulated  into  nine  moral  pre- 
cepts, with  a  Sabbath  commandment  added."  The  Lord's 
Day  our  Sabbath,  page  10, 

THE  SABBATH  ON  A  ROUND  EARTH. 

In  their  very  nature  all  purely  moral  laws  are  universal 
and  eternal  in  their  application,  are  binding  in  heaven,  in 
Eden,  on  Jews  or  Gentiles,  saints  or  sinners,  now  or  here- 
after.    Test  the  particular  seventh  day,  Saturday^  by  that 


THE   NATURE   OF  THE   SABBATH   COMMANDMENT.        173 

rule,  and  it  fails  everywhere.  Go  to  Venus,  where  the  days 
are  about  twenty -three  hours  long;  to  Jupiter,  where  they 
are  only  about  ten  hours  long;  to  Saturn,  where  they  are 
about  twelve  hours  long,  or  to  some  of  the  larger  planets, 
where  their  days  are  much  longer  than  ours.  How  could 
the  inhabitants  of  those  worlds  keep  our  seventh  day  ? 
They  could  keep  a  seventh  day,  their  own,  but  that  would 
not  be  of  the  same  length  of  ours,  nor  come  at  the  same 
time  of  ours.  Their  seventh  day  would  not  be  our  Satur- 
day, nor  would  the  seventh  day  of  any  two  planets  be  alike, 
nor  come  at  the  same  time.  All  the  universe  can  keep  a 
seventh  part  of  time,  but  not  the  same  seventh  part.  Not 
knowmg  this,  see  what  a  blunder  Mrs.  White  made.  She 
says:  "I  saw  that  the  Sabbath  would  never  be  done  away, 
but  the  redeemed  saints,  and  all  the  angelic  host^  will 
observe  it  in  honor  of  the  great  Creator  to  all  eternity." 
Spiritual  Gifts,  Vol.  I,  page  113.  Elder  U.  Smith,  Biblical 
Institute,  page  145,  says:  "We  infer  that  the  higher  orders 
of  his  intelligences  keep  the  Sabbath  also.  ^  *  *  The 
Sabbath  of  each  of  his  creatures  will  be  the  Sabbath  of  all 
the  rest,  so  that  all  will  observe  the  same  jperiod  together  for 
the  same  purpose." 

Here  you  have  your  definite  seventh-day  theory  with  a 
vengeance.  Look  at  the  utter  absurdity  and  impossibility 
of  the  theory.  All  intelligent  beings  in  heaven  and  earth 
and  on  all  the  planets,  keep  "the  same  period  together."  So 
the  Sabbath  day  on  this  little  planet  of  ours  regulates  the 
Sabbath  days  of  all  the  planets  in  the  universe  !  I  wonder 
how  they  manage  it  in  Jupiter,  where  their  days  are  only 
ten  hours  long,  or  in  Venus,  where  they  are  twenty -three 
hours  long,  or  in  some  of  the  planets  where  they  are  as  long 
as  several  of  our  days  ?  As  the  Sabbath  must  be  kept  from 
sunset  to  sunset  (Lev.  23:  32),  I  wonder  how  they  find  out, 
on  all  those  planets,  just  when  it  is  sunset  down  here ! 


174  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

The  stubborn  facts  nearer  home  show  that  God's  children 
do  not,  and  cannot,  all  "observe  the  same  period  together." 
Everybody  knows  that  it  is  Saturday  in  India  some  twelve 
l^ours  sooner  than  it  is  here,  and  that  it  is  Saturday  here 
twelve  hours  after  it  has  ceased  to  be  Saturday  there.  In 
Australia  the  day  begins  eighteen  hours  sooner  than  it  does 
in  California.  So  the  Seventh-Day  brethren  in  California 
are  working  nearly  the  whole  time  that  their  brethren  in 
Australia  are  keeping  Sabbath!  Come  even  nearer  home 
than  that.  The  sun  sets  about  three  hours  later  in  Califor- 
nia than  it  does  in  Maine.  So  when  the  Seventh  day  Ad- 
ventists  in  Maine  begin  to  keep  the  Sabbath  at  sunset  Friday 
evening,  their  own  brethren  in  California,  where  the  sun  is 
yet  three  hours  high,  will  still  be  at  work  for  three  hours! 
So,  very  few  of  them  on  this  earth,  * 'observe  the  same 
period  together."  While  some  of  them  are  keeping  Sabbath 
on  one  part  of  the  earth,  others  of  them  are  at  work  on 
another  part  of  the  earth.  How  much  less,  then,  do  all  the 
heavenly  hosts  keep  the  same  period  with  men  on  earth. 

Now,  if,  as  Mrs.  White  and  Bro.  Smith  say,  the  angels  keep 
our  Sabbath,  the  question  is,  with  which  party  do  they  keep  it? 
With  those  in  Australia,  or  those  in  America  ?  If  the  angels 
keep  the  Sabbath  at  the  same  time  the  Sabbatarians  keep  it 
in  Australia,  then  the  Sabbatarians  in  America  are  working 
while  the  angels  keep  Sabbath,  and  so,  of  course,  the  angels 
work  while  those  here  rest.  So  we  see  how  absolutely  false 
and  absurd  is  the  theory  that  all  can  keep  the  Sabbath  at  the 
same  time. 

I  have  to  confess  that  for  many  years  I  was  so  stupid  as 
to  suppose  that  the  Lord  himself  kept  the  Sabbath  at  the 
same  time  I  did  here.  I  supposed  that  when  the  sun  set 
Friday  evening  and  I  began  keeping  the  Sabbath,  the  Lord 
and  the  angels  began  keeping  it  too.  But  now  I  see  how 
utterly  impossible  that  is;  for  if  the  Lord  keeps  the  Sabbath 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  SABBATH  COMMANDMENT.        1T5 

at  the  same  time  I  do  here,  then  he  does  not  keep  it  with  the 
brethren  on  the  other  side  of  the  globe,  because  they  begin 
the  Sabbath  at  least  twelve  hours  earlier  than  we  do  here. 
In  fact,  it  takes  just  forty-eight  hours,  or  the  time  of  two 
whole  days,  from  the  time  any  one  day  begins  in  the  ex- 
treme east  till  it  ends  at  the  furthest  place  in  the  west.  Will 
the  reader  stop  and  think  carefully,  sharply,  on  this  point, 
for  it  is  an  important  one  ?  It  takes  twenty-four  hours  for 
ih^  first  end  of  a  day  to  go  clear  around  the  earth.  Then, 
as  the  last  end  of  the  da}^  is  twenty-four  hours  behind  the 
first  end^  it  must  also  have  twenty-four  hours  more  to  go 
clear  around  the  earth,  and  that  makes  forty-eight  hours  in 
all  that  each  day  is  on  the  earth  somewhere. 

I  am  quite  certain  that  the  average  Sabbatarian  feels  when 
L  e  keeps  the  seventh  day  that  he  is  now  keeping  holy  time 
with  the  Lord  himself,  and  with  the  angels,  and  with  all  his 
brethren.  I  used  to  feel  that  way  I  know,  and  the  above 
quotations  from  Mrs.  White  and  Elder  Smith  show  plainly 
that  even  they  think  so,  too.  But  it  will  be  seen  that  this 
cannot  be  so  unless  the  Lord  keeps  the  time  of  two  whole 
days  each  week.  And  in  that  case,  those  on  this  side  of  the 
earth  would  be  working  while  the  Lord  was  keeping  the 
Sabbath  with  those  on  the  other  side  of  the  earth.  Then 
those  on  the  opposite  of  the  earth  would  be  working  while 
the  Lord  kept  Sabbath  with  those  on  this  side.  And  so  none 
of  them  would  keep  the  Sabbath  with  the  Lord  after  all ! 
In  fact,  taking  it  all  around  the  earth,  there  is  not  a  single 
hour  in  the  whole  week,  when  there  is  not  some  Sabbatarian 
at  work  on  some  part  of  the  earth  ! 

But,  further,  does  the  Lord  keep  our  seventh  day  with  us, 
or  does  he  keep  the  seventh  day  with  the  people  on 
other  planets  ?  Our  days  and  wrecks  are  not  at  all  in  harmony 
with  theirs,  nor  can  one  of  them  be  like  another.  Now,  if 
the  Lord  rests  only  on  our  Saturday,  then  he  could  not  rest 


176  SEVENTH-DAY  ABVENTISM  EENOUNCED. 

on  the  seventh  day  of  Venus  or  Mars  or  Jupiter,  etc.,  as  the 
seventh  day  of  each  planet  differs  in  length  and  comes  at  a 
different  time,  from  that  of  our  earth  or  any  other  planet. 
How,  then,  could  God  rest  on  all  these  days?  If  he  did  he  must 
keep  Sabbath  all  the  time,  and  then  nobody,  angels  or  men, 
could  keep  the  Sabbath  with  the  Lord  if  they  worked  at  all! 
What,  then,  becomes  of  Mrs.  White's  statement  that  '*all 
the  angelic  hosts"  keep  our  Sabbath  ?  or  Elder  Smith's  hy- 
pothesis that  all  the  universe  "will  observe  the  same  period 
together?"  Both  are  utterly  absurd.  The  same  definite 
seventh  day  cannot  be  kept  by  all  the  universe;  even  on  this 
earth  alone  it  cannot  be  kept  by  all  at  the  same  time;  but  all 
can  keep  a  seventh  part  of  the  time.  This  principle  upon 
which  the  fourth  commandment  was  based,  may  be  of  uni- 
versal application  in  earth  and  in  heaven,  in  time  or  eternity. 
But  just  which  day  that  shall  be,  is  a  matter  of  minor  conse< 
quence  to  be  determined  by  the  circumstances  in  the  case, 
which  may  and  must  differ  at  different  times  and  different 
places.  To  the  Jewish  people  it  certainly  was  the  seventh 
day,  or  Saturday,  and  no  other  day  would  have  met  the 
commandment.  All  the  rigorous  limitations  and  exactions 
of  the  Sabbath  day,  as  under  the  Jewish  law,  could  be  car- 
ried out  by  a  small  people  in  a  limited  territory  where  the 
church  bore  rule.  A  particular  day,  the  seventh,  Deut.  5: 
12-13;  definite  hours,  sunset  to  sunset.  Lev.  23:  32;  no 
fires  in  all  their  houses,  Ex.  35:  3;  stoning  to  death  for 
picking  up  a  stick.  Num.  15:  32-36 — this  was  the  Jewish 
law.  But  we  are  not  Jews  nor  under  the  Jewish  law. 
Under  the  new  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  other  circum- 
stances have  arisen  plainly  and  grandly  marking  another 
day  as  the  all  important  day  in  Christian  memory — the 
resurrection  day.  When  the  gospel  was  to  go  to  all  nations, 
to  all  climates,  and  around  the  earth,  the  Christian  rest  daji 
was  necessarily  and  wisely  left  upon  a  far  different  basis. 


THE   NATURE   OF  THE   SABBATH   COMMANDMENT.        177 
WHERE   SHALL  WE   BEGIN   THE   DAT? 

If  a  man's  salvation  depends  upon  keeping  the  same  day 
to  a  minute  that  God  kept  at  creation,  then  it  is  infinitely 
important  that  we  know  exactly  to  a  rod  where  his  day 
began  so  as  to  begin  ours  there  too.  But  the  Lord  has  not 
said  a  word  about  it  nor  given  the  least  clue  as  to  where  to 
begin  the  day.  JN^or  do  Sabbatarians  know  anything  about 
it,  but  have  to  guess  at  the  whole  thing.  The  day  is 
now  generally  reckoned  to  begin  at  a  certain  line  180  de- 
grees west  from  Greenwich,  England.  It  runs  north  and 
south  through  the  Pacific  Ocean  about  4,000  miles  west  of 
America.  I  wrote  Prof.  E.  S.  Holden  of  Lick  Observatory 
asking,  ''  1.  Have  we  the  date  when  the  day  line  was 
established  there  ?  2.  Who  did  it,  and  why  ?  3.  When  ? 
4.  Has  it  been  reckoned  from  other  places  than  Greenwich  ?" 
He  answered:  "1.  There  was  no  one  date.  2.  No  ona 
.For  convenience.  3.  During  the  last  hundred  years.  4. 
Yes.  Canary  Islands,  Tenerefie,  Ferro,  Paris,  Berlin,  Jeru- 
salem, Washington,  etc."  So  we  see:  1.  It  is  only 
within  the  last  hundred  years  that  the  day  line  has  been 
fixed  where  it  now  is.  2.  This  was  done  merely  for  con- 
venience, not  because  there  was  anything  in  nature  requir- 
ing it.  3.  At  difierent  times  the  day  line  has  been  counted 
from  at  least  seven  difierent  places,  from  Jerusalem  in  the 
east  to  Washington  in  the  west,  about  8,000  miles  difierence, 
or  one-third  the  way  around  the  earth.  Hence,  the  begin- 
ning of  the  seventh  day  has  varied  that  much  at  difierent 
dates.  4.  In  another  century  it  may  be  changed  again.  5. 
There  is  just  as  much  authority  for  one  place  as  the  other, 
and  no  divine  autnority  for  either,  as  it  is  all  man's  work 
and  done  at  hap-hazard.  6.  Hence,  so  far  as  duty  to  God 
is  concerned,  any  nation,  church  or  society  is  at  liberty  to 
begin  the  day  wherever  they  please.  One  place  will  be  just 
as  apt  to  be  in  harmony  with  God's  day  line  aa  another. 


178  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM   EENOUNCKD. 

Sabbatarians  in  America  can  fix  their  day  line  in  the 
Atlantic  instead  of  in  the  Pacific  and  then  our  Sunday  will 
be  Saturday,  and  they  will  be  all  right  and  convert  a  nation 
in  a  day !     Could  any  one  prove  that  this  would  not  be  in 
harmony  with  God's  day  line  at  creation  ?    Certainly  not. 
It  would  be  just  as  apt  to  be  right  as  the  present  day  line. 
Then  why  not  do  it  ?  Indeed,  this  is  exactly  parallel  to  what 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  have  done  within  the  past  few  years 
in  the  case  of  a  whole  colony  in  the  Pacific  Ocean.    Pitcairn 
Island,  in  the  Pacific,  was  settled  one  hundred  years  ago  by 
persons  who  brought  their  reckoning  eastward  ft-om  Asia. 
But  it  happens  to  be  on  the  American  side  of  the  present 
day  line ;  hence  their  Sunday  was  our  Saturday,  and  they  all 
kept  it  one  hundred  years  as  Sunday.   According  to  Advent- 
ists, this  was  an  awful  thing,  for  Sunday  is  the  Pope's  Sab- 
bath, the  mark  of  the  beast !    So,  a  few  years  ago,  Advent- 
ists went  there  and  converted  them  all  to  keeping  Saturday. 
How  ?    They  simply  induced  them  to  change  their  reckon- 
ing of  the  day  line  a  few  miles  and  lo  !  their  Sunday  was 
Saturday  !     Now  they  are  all  pious  Sabbath-keepers  while 
before  they  were  all  keeping  Sunday,  the  mark  of  the  beast ! 
And  yet  they  are  keeping  exactly  the  same  day  they  always 
kept !     If  this  is  not  hair-splitting,  tell  me  what  is.     It  illus-  ^ 
trates  the  childishness  of  the  whole  Sabbatarian  business./' 
Now  let  the  Adventists  just  shift  their  day  line  a  little  further 
east  to  include  America  and  they  can  keep  our  day  with  us. 

If  the  day  began  in  the  traditional  place  where  Eden  is 
said  to  have  been  located,  then  the  day  line  would  be  away 
west  of  the  present  location  some  7,000  miles,  west  even  of 
Australia;  and  then  the  Seventh-Day  people  in  Australia  are 
not  keeping  the  Sabbath  at  all.  In  that  case  the  Sunday- 
keepers  of  New  Zealand  and  Australia  are  now  actually  keep- 
ing the  original  seventh  day,  and  Sabbatarians  there  are 
keeping  the  sixth  day  !     Do  they  know,  and  can  they  prove, 


THE   NATURE  OF  THE   SABBATH  COMMANDMENT.        lT9 

fchat  this  is  not  so  ?  No;  they  simply  have  to  take  the  reckon- 
ing just  as  it  happened  to  be,  right  or  wrong,  without 
knowing  which  it  is.  And  yet,  at  great  expense,  they  have 
sent  missionnries  th(?re  to  convert  the  people  over  to  keep 
another  d;i}  ,  when  actually  they  do  not  know  but  what  those 
people  are  really  keeping  the  seventh  day,  and  they  them- 
selves arc  wrong  !  None,  not  even  themselves,  pretend  to 
know  where  God  began  to  reckon  that  day;  yet  they  draw 
the  line  to  a  hair,  and  say  that  all  will  be  damned  who  do 
not  toe  that  line  and  count  from  that  spot !  Does  the  salva- 
tion of  a  man's  soul  depend  upon  such  mathematical  niceties 
and  such  uncertainties  as  these  ?  If  it  does,  we  may  well 
despair  of  heaven. 

The  very  fact  that  God  has  never  revealed  just  where  the 
true  day  line  is,  or  where  the  seventh  day  began,  shows  that 
it  is  of  no  consequence  for  us  to  know.  Alaska,  the  north- 
west point  of  America,  was  settled  by  Russians  ages  ago, 
before  the  present  day  line  existed.  Of  course  they  brought 
their  reckoning  with  them  and  hence  their  Sunday  was  on 
Saturday.  In  1867  we  bought  Alaska  and  it  became  a  part 
of  the  United  States.  The  day  we  took  possession  our  laws 
changed  their  Sunday  to  Saturday,  all  by  human  authority. 
Did  that  change  the  Edenic  Sabbath  for  that  people  ?  Again, 
in  going  around  the  earth  one  way  we  lose  a  day  and  going 
the  other  way  we  gain  a  day.  Hence,  in  one  case  we  must 
add  a  day  and  in  the  other  drop  a  day.  All  have  to  do  this 
to  keep  in  harmony  with  the  world.  Adventists  do  this, 
but  by  what  authority,  and  where  ?  The  Bible  says  keep 
the  seventh  day  and  from  sunset  to  sunset.  Ex.  20:  8-11; 
Lev.  23:  32.  Let  two  Adventists  start  from  Chicago,  one 
going  east,  the  other  w^est,  around  the  earth.  Each  keeps 
carefully  the  seventh  day  as  the  sun  sets.  When  they  meet 
again  at  Chicago  they  will  be  two  days  apart !  One  will  be 
keeping  Sunday  and  the  other  Friday.     How  do  they  man- 


180  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

age  it  ?  Each  gives  up  his  seventh  day  and  both  take  that  of 
the  world.     So  they  only  have  a  worldly  day  after  all ! 

Look  also  at  the  difficulty  in  crossing  this  supposed  day 
line  in  the  Pacific  Ocean.  I  have  personally  conversed  with 
Sabbatarians  who  have  crossed  this  line  both  ways,  east  and 
west.  Going  west,  a  day  is  added^  gohig  east  it  is  dropped, 
and  this  is  done  at  noon  of  the  day  which  finds  them  nearest 
the  supposed  line.  On  the  vessel,  a  man  going  west  sits 
down  to  dinner  11:50  ji.  m.  Friday.  While  he  is  eating  the 
time  is  changed  and  he  rises  from  dinner  Saturday  noon  ! 
Then  he  has  only  six  hours  of  Sabbath  till  sunset;  or  coming 
east,  he  sits  down  to  dinner  Saturday  noon  and  rises  from 
dinner  Friday  noon  !  He  has  kept  eighteen  hours  Sabbath; 
then  it  is  gone  in  a  second  at  high  noon,  and  he  has  six  hours 
to  work  till  sunset.  Now  he  must  begin  Sabbath  once  more 
and  keep  it  over  again — twenty-four  hours  I  In  one  case  ho 
only  kept  six  hours  Sabbath,  and  in  the  other  case  he  kept 
forty-two  hours  ! 

These  stubborn  facts  demonstrate  the  utter  absurdity  of 
the  Sabbatarian  view.  They  claim  that  these  things  do  not 
bother  them  any;  but  I  know  that  they  do,  and  badly,  too. 
They  have  ^vritten  much  on  it,  devised  all  sorts  of  diagrams, 
illustrations  and  arguments  to  meet  the  difficulty;  but  none 
are  satisfactory,  even  to  themselves.  Hence  new  methods 
are  constantly  being  devised  to  dodge  the  difficulty.  The 
latest  discovery  is  that  adopted  by  the  Seventh-Day  Advent- 
ist  ministers  of  the  New  Tork  conference.  It  is  that  the  earth 
is  absolutely  flat  and  stationary^  with  sun,  moon  and  stars 
much  smaller  than  the  earth  and  revolving  around  it !  "The 
sun,  he  do  move,"  the  old  darkey  said,  and  they  say,  Amen. 

THE   SABBATH   AT  THE   NORTH  POLE. 

Now  test  the  definite  Seventh-Day  theory  in  the  frozen 
regions  of  the  north.     The  day  must  be  kept  from  sunset  to 


THE   NATURE   OF  THE   SABBATH   COMIVIAXDMENT-         181 

sunset.  Lev.  23:32.  But  in  the  winter  there  are  months 
when  the  sun  is  not  seen  there  at  all,  so  they  have  no  sunset 
And  again,  in  summer  there  are  months  when  the  sun  is 
above  the  horizon  all  the  time,  when  there  is  no  sunset. 
Here  the  theory  breaks  clown  entirely,  and  the  day  must  be 
reckoned  by  artificial  means.  They  can  keep  one-seventh  of 
the  time,  and  that  is  absolutely  all  that  can  be  done.  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  have  argued  that  there  was  no  real  difficulty 
here;  it  was  all  imaginary.  They  try  to  bluff  it  off  with  a 
laugh;  but  that  does  not  answer  the  facts.  I  know  that 
they  themselves  have  got  into  serious  trouble  right  here.  So 
great  was  their  difficulty,  even  in  northern  Sweden  and  Nor- 
way, that  in  1886  it  was  seriously  discussed  as  to  whether 
they  must  not  change  and  reckon  the  day  not  from  sunset  as 
now,  but  from  0  p.  m.  Mrs.  White  and  son  were  there  and 
favored  the  change.  I  Avas  on  a  committee  of  the  General 
Conference  to  investigate  the  matter.  We  decided  against 
the  change  and  it  was  abandoned.  What  endless  and  need- 
less difficulties  people  get  themselves  into  trying  to  keep  a  law 
which  was  only  designed  for  the  Jews  in  a  limited  locality. 
How  contrary  to  the  freedom  and  simplicity  of  the  gospel ! 
In  reply  to  all  these  facts,  which  cannot  be  denied, 
Seventh-Day  people  say:  Is  not  the  first  da}^  of  the  week, 
or  Sunday,  just  as  definite  a  day  as  the  seventh  day,  or  Sat- 
urday ?  Is  it  not  just  as  difficult  to  keep  Sunday  all  around 
the  world  as  it  is  to  keep  Saturday  ?  Do  3'ou  not  claim  that 
you  should  keep  the  first  day  in  honor  of  the  resurrection  ? 
and  will  it  do,  then,  to  keep  some  other  day  ?  The  answer 
to  these  questions  is  not  hard  to  give.  The  essential  idea  is 
that  we  should  devote  one  day  in  seven  to  religious  duties. 
To  secure  the  highest  good,  all  should  unite  in  observing  the 
same  day.  From  the  days  of  the  apostles  the  Christian 
church  has,  with  one  consent,  observed  the  day  on  which 
Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  the  first  dav  of  the  week,  or  Sun- 


182  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

day.  But  it  is  not  claimed  that  it  is  absolutely  essential  that 
exactly  the  same  minutes  and  hours,  or  even  the  same 
definite  day,  must  be  kept  anyway  and  under  all  circum- 
stances, whether  or  no.  That  would  be  legalism,  and  con- 
trary to  the  very  nature  and  freedom  of  the  gospel.  Sup- 
pose the  Jewish  day  on  which  Jesus  arose  was  reckoned  from 
sunset  to  sunset,  as  doubtless  it  was,  must  we  also  reckon  it 
that  way  ?  As  it  is  found  more  convenient  to  reckon  the 
day  from  midnight  to  midnight,  and  as  all  are  united  in 
doing  so,  it  is  for  the  best  interests  of  religion  to  conform  to 
this  custom.  If,  in  traveling  around  the  world,  men  should 
mistake  their  longitude,  as  in  case  of  Alaska  and  Pitcairn's 
Island,  and  call  Saturday  Sunday,  it  is  not  material.  They 
had  better  all  unite  on  that  than  to  quarrel  over  it. 

If,  in  the  long  period  of  darkness  at  the  north  pole,  men 
should  lose  the  time,  and  then  select  some  other  period  than 
that  which  exactly  corresponds  to  our  Sunday,  hour  for 
hour,  the  difierence  would  not  be  material.  Or,  if  in  locat- 
ing the  day  line  from  which  to  reckon  the  beginning  of  the 
day,  that  line  had  happened  to  be  located  5,000  miles  further 
east  or  10,000  further  west,  it  would  not  have  made  a  par- 
ticle of  difference.  And  as  to  whether  we  now  begin  the 
day  just  where  God  did  in  Eden  or  not,  is  a  matter  of  no 
consequence.  And  whether  our  brethren  in  China  rest  at 
the  same  time  we  do  or  not,  is  of  little  account.  And 
whether  the  Sabbath  of  Jupiter  and  Mars  and  Neptune,  and 
of  heaven  itself,  comes  when  ours  does  or  not,  is  of  little 
interest  to  us.  It  will  be  time  enough  to  settle  that  matter 
when  we  go  to  live  with  them.  So,  while  traveling  around 
the  earth,  east  or  west,  or  crossing  the  day  line,  whether  or 
not  we  are  able  to  keep  exactly  the  same  time,  or  even  exactly 
one-seventh  part  of  time  to  a  minute,  is  of  little  importance. 
We  do  the  best  we  can  under  the  circumstances,  and  con- 
foriaa  to  the  time  as  reckoned  by  those  where  we  go.     To 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  SABBATH  COMMANDMENT.        183 

* 'strain  at  a  gnat  and  swallow  a  camel,"  is  not  a  good  prac- 
tice in  any  cause.  But  with  the  strict  Sabbatarian  all  this 
is  entirely  different  A  certain  day,  beginning  at  precisely 
such  a  line  to  a  hair,  and  at  such  a  minute  to  a  second,  is 
holy  time.  If  you  don't  hit  that  exact  time  just  right,  you 
might  as  well  keep  no  day  at  all !  That  may  do  for  Judaism, 
but  it  certainly  is  not  according  to  the  spirit  and  freedom  of 
the  gospel. 

I  believe  this  is  a  fair  statement  of  the  position  held  by 
the  great  body  of  the  intelligent  observers  of  Sunday.  It 
harmonizes  exactly  with  the  statement  of  our  Savior,  that 
^-  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sab- 
bath." Mark  2:27.  Man  and  his  highest  good  are  first; 
the  Sabbath  is  secondary  and  subservient  to  these.  Practi- 
cally, the  Sabbatarian  exactly  reverses  this  order.  The  Sab- 
bath is  the  all-important  thing,  a  rigid,  iron  rule,  unbending 
and  inflexible.  Man  and  his  necessities  and  his  good  are  of 
little  or  no  account  in  comparison  with  the  supremely  great 
duty  to  keep  the  Sabbath.  ' '  Man  was  made  for  the  Sab- 
bath, and  not  the  Sabbath  for  man,"  would  much  better 
express  their  idea  of  the  relative  importance  of  the  two.  It 
is  well  for  the  people  and  the  world  that  such  pharisaical 
ideas  have  found  few  advocates  in  the  church  of  Christ. 

LOST  TIME. 

Then  how  do  Sabbatarians  know  that  our  Saturday  is  the 
exact  seventh  day  from  creation  down  ?  Saj' s  Rev.  J.  H. 
Potts,  D.  D. ,  editor  of  the  Michigan  (Methodist)  Christian 
Advocate:  "That  in  selecting  the  Jewish  Sabbath  day, 
Moses  selected  the  regular  successive  seventh  day  of  human 
time  from  Adam  down  cannot  be  proved  by  any  authority, 
human  or  divine."  The  Lord's  Day  our  Sabbath,  page  12. 
This  is  endorsed  by  Bishop  Harris  and  several  other  eminent 
divines.     So  Rev.  Geo.  Elliott,  in  his  ''Abiding  Sabbath," 


184  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

says:     ''  There  is  no  possible  means  of  fixing  the  day  of  the 
original  Sabbath."     So  say  all  unbiased  writers. 

During  the  long  period  before  the  flood;  during  the  patri- 
archal age  when  they  had  no  records;  during  their  slavery 
in  Egypt  when  even  traditional  knowledge  was  largely  lost; 
during  the  anarchy  under  the  judges,  and  all  down  the  ages 
since,  are  they  sure  that  no  mistake  has  been  made,  not  even 
of  one  day  ?  Of  course  they  are  not.  The  only  possible 
way  they  can  tell  is  by  human  tradition.  In  answer  to  my 
inquiry  upon  the  point,  Rabbi  Isaac  M.  Wise,  Cincinnati, 
O.,  the  most  learned  Jew  of  the  land,  wrote  me:  ^'The 
Jemsh  Sabbath  is,  in  point  of  the  particular  time,  a  matter 
of  tradition."  So  after  all,  their  Sabbath-keeping  rests  upon 
tradition  of  men,  the  very  thing  Adventists  condemn. 

But  it  is  said  that  if  the  day  had  been  lost,  God  knew 
which  it  was  and  would  have  pointed  it  out  at  the  giving  of 
the  manna.  Or  if  it  had  been  lost  before  Christ's  time,  he 
would  have  known  it  and  would  have  corrected  them.  But 
this  assumes  the  very  thing  to  be  proved,  viz. :  that  God 
cares  as  much  about  special  hours  and  minutes  as  they  do. 
This  they  can  not  prove.  Evidently  from  the  slight  im- 
portance which  he  attached  to  keeping  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath Jesus  would  have  kept  any  day  which  he  found 
observed  by  the  nation. 


CHAPTER  X. 

WHY  CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY. 

Almost  universally  Christians  regard  Sunday  as  a  sacred 
day.  Do  they  olSer  for  this  any  adequate  reasons  ?  Yes, 
indeed,  and  those  which  have  been  satisfactory  to  all  th« 
best  and  ablest  Christians  the  church  has  ever  had.  After 
keeping  the  seventh  day  and  extensively  advocating  it  for 
over  a  quarter  of  a  century,  I  became  satisfied  that  it  was  an 
error,  and  that  the  blessing  of  God  did  not  go  with  the  keeph 
ing  of  it.  Like  thousands  of  others,  when  I  embraced  the 
Seventh-Day  Sabbath  I  thought  that  the  argument  was  all 
on  one  side,  so  plain  that  one  hour's  reading  ought  to  settle 
it,  so  clear  that  no  man  could  reject  the  Sabbath  and  be 
honest.  The  only  marvel  to  me  was  that  everybody  did  not 
see  and  embrace  it. 

But  after  keeping  it  twenty-eight  years;  after  having  per- 
suaded more  than  a  thousand  others  to  keep  it;  after  having 
read  my  Bible  through,  verse  by  verse,  more  than  twenty 
times;  after  having  scrutinized,  to  the  very  best  of  my  ability, 
every  text,  line  and  word  in  the  Bible  having  the  remotest 
bearing  upon  the  Sabbath  question;  after  having  looked  up 
all  these,  both  in  the  original  and  in  many  translations;  after 
having  searched  in  lexicons,  concordances,  commentaries 
and  dictionaries;  after  having  read  armfuls  of  books  on  both 
sides  of  the  question ;  after  having  read  every  line  in  all  the 
early  church  fathers  upon  this  point;  and  having  written 
several  works  in  favor  of  the  Seventh-Day,  which  were  satis- 
factory to  my  brethren;  after  having  debated  the  question 
for  more  than  a  dozen  times;  after  seeing  the  fruits  of  keep- 

(185) 


186  SEYENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

ing  it,  and  weighing  all  the  evidence  in  the  fear  of  God^  1 
am  fully  settled  in  my  own  mind  and  conscience  that  the 
evidence  is  against  the  keeping  of  the  Seventh-Day. 

Those  who  observe  Sunday  say  that  they  do  it  in  honor  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  upon  that  day,  and  that  this  prac- 
tice was  derived  from  the  apostles  and  has  been  continued  in 
the  church  ever  since.  Let  us  see.  "The  Lord's  Day" 
is  a  term  now  commonly  applied  to  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  in  honor  of  the  Lord's  resurrection  on  that  day. 
Thus:  "We  believe  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  first 
day  of  the  week  is  the  Lord's  day."  Baptist  Church 
Directory,  page  171.  Excepting  a  few  Sabbatarians  of 
late  date,  all  Christendom,  numbering  four  hundred  and 
sixteen  million  people,  of  all  sects  and  all  nations,  regard 
Sunday  as  a  sacred  day  and  agree  in  applying  the  term 
"Lord's  Day"  to  Sunday.  So  every  dictionary,  lexicon 
and  cyclopedia  applies  that  term  to  the  first  day.  Here  is  a 
grand,  undeniable  fact  of  to  day.  When  did  this  stream 
begin?  Let  us  trace  it  up  to  its  head  through  all  the 
centuries. 

18th  century,  A.  D.  1760.  Rev.  A.  H.  Lewis,  D.  D., 
Seventh-Day  Baptist,  is  the  author  of  "Critical  History  of 
Sunday  Legislation."  From  page  181  1  quote:  "  The  pro- 
fanation of  the  Lord's  Day  is  highly  oflfensive  to  Almighty 
God."     Laws  of  Massachusetts,  A.  D.  1760. 

17th  century,  A.  D.  1676.  The  Laws  of  Charles  H  of 
England  say:  "For  the  better  observation  and  keeping 
holy  the  Lord's  Day,  commonly  called  Sunday,  be  it  enacted," 
etc.     Critical  History  of  Sunday  Legislation,  page  108. 

16th  century,  A.  D.  1536.  Going  back  over  300 
years  ago  to  the  reformers,  we  find  all  Christians  calling 
Sunday  the  "Lord's  Day."  Calvin,  voicing  the  universal 
sentiment  of  his  time,  says:  "The  ancients  have,  not  with- 
out sufiBcient   reason,  substituted  what  we  call  the  Lord's 


WHY   CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY,  187 

Day  in  the  room  of  the  Sabbath."  Calvin's  Institute,  Book 
2,  chapter  VIII,  section  34.  Luther,  Zwingle,  Beza,  Bucer, 
Cranmer,  Tyndale,  etc. ,  likewise  speak  of  the  Lord's  Day  as 
the  first  day  of  the  week.  Here  is  another  great  fact  as  to 
the  Lord's  Day.  It  was  in  existence  and  universally  observed 
300  years  ago. 

15th  century,  A.  D.  1409.  ''He  that  play eth  at  unlaw- 
ful games  on  Sundays  *  *  *  gliall  be  six  days 
imprisoned."  Statute  of  Henry  IV  of  England.  Critical 
History  of  Sunday  Legislation,  page  90. 

I4th  century,  A.  D.  1359.  "It  is  provided  by  sanctions 
of  law  and  canon  that  all  Lord's  Days  be  venerably  observed." 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  Critical  History  of  Sunday 
Legislation,  page  82. 

13th  century,  A.  D.  1281.  "  The  obligation  to  observe 
the  legal  Sabbatlj  according  to  the  form  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  at  an  end  *  *  ^  to  which  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment hath  succeeded  the  custom  of  spending  the  Lord's  Day 
*  *  *  in  the  worship  of  God. "  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury.    Critical  History  of  Sunday  Legislation,  page  81. 

12th  century,  A.  D.  1174.  "We  do  ordain  that  these 
days  following  be  exempt  from  labor:  *  *  *  All  Sundays 
in  the  year,"  etc.  Emperor  of  Constantinople.  History  of 
Sabbath  and  Sunday,  page  191. 

11th  century,  A.  D.  1025.  "  Sunday  marketing  we  also 
strictly  forbid."  Laws  of  Denmark.  Critical  History  of 
Sunday  Legislation,  page  77. 

10th  centur}',  A.  D.  975.  "Sunday  is  very  solemnly  to  be 
reverenced."  Saxon  Laws.  Critical  History  of  Sunday 
Legislation,  page  75. 

9th  century,  A.  D.  813.  "All  Lord's  Days  shall  be  ob- 
served with  all  due  veneration  and  all  servile  work  shall  be 
abstained  from."     Council  of  Mayence. 

8th  century.     In  the  year  747,  an  English  council  said: 


188       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

*'It  is  ordered  that  the  Lord's  Day  be  celebrated  with  due 
veneration,  and  wholly  devoted  to  the  worship  of  God/' 
Andrew's  History  of  the  Sabbath,  page  377. 

7th  century,  A.  D.  695.  *'If  a  slave  work  on  Sunday  by 
iiis  lord's  command,  let  him  be  free."  Saxon  Laws.  Critical 
History  of  Sunday  Legislation,  page  71. 

6th  century,  A.  D.  578.  "On  the  Lord's  Day  it  is  not  per^^ 
mitted  to  yoke  oxen  or  to  perform  any  other  work  except 
for  appointed  reasons."     Council  of  Auxerre. 

5th  century.  Passing  back  to  about  A.  D.  450,  we  come  to 
the  history  of  the  church  written  by  Sozomen.  In  book  2,  Chap- 
ter Vni,  page  22,  of  Constantine,  he  says:  "He  honored  the 
Lord's  Day,  because  on  it  he  arose  from  the  dead."  This 
shows  what  was  meant  by  Lord's  Day  in  those  early  times. 

Stepping  back  once  more  to  about  A.  D.  400,  we  reach  the 
great  theologian  of  the  early  church,  St.  Augustine.  He  says: 
"The  day  now  known  as  the  Lord's  Day,  the  eighth,  namely, 
which  is  also  the  first  day  of  the  week."  Letters  of  St. 
Augustine,  letter  55,  Chapter  XHL  He  says  the  first  day  of 
the  week  was  known  as  the  Lord's  Day  in  his  times. 

4th  century.  In  A.  D.  386,  the  Emperors  of  Rome  de- 
creed as  follows:  "On  the  day  of  the  sun,  properly  called 
the  Lord's  Day,  by  our  ancestors,  let  there  be  a  cessation  of 
lawsuits,  business,  and  indictments."  Critical  History  of 
Sunday  Legislation,  page  36.  Even  the  civil  law  at  that 
early  date  recognized  Sunday  as  the  Lord's  Day. 

Going  back  again  to  the  era  of  Constantine  the  Great,  the 
first  Christian  Emperor,  we  reach  Eusebius,  the  "Father  of 
Church  History,"  A.  D.  324.  He  constantly  and  familiarly 
uses  the  term  "Lord's  Day"  for  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
One  passage:  "They  (the  Jewish  Christians)  also  observe 
the  Sabbath,  and  other  discipline  of  the  Jews,  just  like  them; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  also  celebrate  the  Lord's  Days 
very  much  like  us  in  commemoration  of  his  resurrection.'* 


WHY   CHRISTIANS   KEEP  SUNDAY.  189 

Eccl.  Historj^,  book  3,  Chapter  XXVII.  Here  Lord's  Day 
is  distinguished  from  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and  is  said  to  be 
kept  on  account  of  the  resuiTection. 

This  brings  us  to  the  era  of  the  Early  Christian  Fathers. 
I  quote  them  as  translated  in  the  "Ante-Nicene  Christian 
Library. " 

A.  D.  306.  Peter,  Bishop  of  Alexandria  in  Egypt:  ''But 
the  Lord's  Day  we  celebrate  as  a  day  of  joy,  because  on  it, 
he  rose  again."     Canon  15. 

3d  century,  A.  D.  270.  Anatolius,  Bishop  of  Laodicea,  in 
Asia  Minor:  "Our  regard  for  the  Lord's  resurrection  which 
took  place  on  the  Lord's  Day  will  lead  us  to  celebrate  it." 
Chapter  X. 

About  A.  D.  250.  The  Apostolical  Constitution:  "On 
the  day  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  which  is  the  Lord's 
Day,  meet  more  diligently . "     Book  2,  section  7. 

A.  D.  250,  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage  in  Africa:  "The 
eighth  day,  that  is,  the  first  day  after  the  Sabbath  and  the 
Lord's  Day."     Epistle  58,  section  4. 

A.  D.  200.  Tertullian  in  Africa:  "We  solemnize  the 
day  after  Saturday  in  contradiction  to  those  who  call  this 
day  their  Sabbath."  Apology,  Chapter  XVI.  "We  how- 
ever, just  as  we  have  received,  only  on  the  day  of  the  Lord's 
resurrection,  ought  to  guard  not  only  against  kneeling,  but 
every  posture  and  office  of  solicitude,  deferring  even  our 
business."     On  Prayer,  Chapter  XXIII. 

2nd  century,  A.  D.  191.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Egypt: 
"He,  in  fulfillment  of  the  precept,  according  to  the  gospel, 
keeps  the  Lord's  Day,  when  he  abandons  an  evil  disposition, 
and  assumes  that  of  the  Gnostic,  glorifying  the  Lord's 
resurrection  in  himself."     Book  7,  Chapter  XII. 

A.  D.  180.  Bardesanes,  Edessa,  Asia:  "On  one  day, 
the  first  of  the  week,  we  assemble  ourselves  together." 
Book  of  the  Laws  of  Countries. 


190  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  KENOUNOED. 

A.  D.  140.  Justin  Martyr:  ''But  Sunday  is  the  day  on 
w^hich  we  all  hold  our  common  assembly,  because  Jesus 
Christ,  our  Savior,  on  the  same  day  rose  from  the  dead. " 
Apology,  Chapter  LXVII. 

A.  D.  120.  Barnabas.  "We  keep  the  eighth  day  with 
joyfulness,  the  day  also  on  which  Jesus  rose  again  from  the 
dead."     Chapter  XVIl. 

A.  D  96.  St.  John  on  Patmos:  "I  was  in  the  spirit  on 
the  Lord's  Day."    Kev.  1:  10. 

A.  D.  60.  Luke,  Asia  Minor:  "And  upon  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break 
bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them."  Acts.  20:  7. 

Thus  we  have  traced  the  Lord's  Day  or  Sunday  as  a 
sacred  day  among  Christians  from  our  time  back  through  all 
the  centuries  up  to  the  New  Testament  itself. 

Who  can  fail  to  see  that  the  "Lord's  Day"  and  the  "first 
day  of  the  week"  are  spoken  of  in  the  same  manner  both 
by  the  apostles  and  down  through  all  the  fathers  and  reform- 
ers to  our  day  ?  To  every  unbiased  mind  the  evidence  must 
be  conclusive  that  the  Lord's  Day  of  Rev.  1:  10,  written  A. 
D.  96,  is  the  resurrection  day  the  same  as  it  is  in  every  in- 
stance where  it  is  used  by  all  the  Christian  fathers  immediately 
following  John.  Mark  this  fact:  l^i  not  one  single  instance 
either  in  the  Bible  or  in  all  history  can  a  passage  be  found 
where  the  term  the  Lord's  Day  is  applied  to  the  seventh 
day,  the  Jewish  Sdbhath.  This  fact  should  be,  and  is  de- 
cisive as  to  the  meaning  in  Rev.  1:  10.  Even  Sabbatarians 
themselves  do  not  call  the  seventh  day  the  Lord's  Day,  but 
always  say  "Sabbath  day." 

TESTIMONY  OF  LEXICONS  AND    CYCLOPEDIAS. 

Webster:  "Sunday,  the  first  day  of  the  week;  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath;  the  Lord's  Day." 

Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible:     "Lord's  Day.     The 


WHY  CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY.  191 

first  day  of  the  week,  or  Sunday,  of  every  age  of  the 
tjhurch." 

Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia:  "Lord's  Day,  the  oldest 
and  best  designation  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  first  used  by 
St.  John."     Rev.  1:  10. 

Buck's  Theological  Dictionary,  article  Sabbath.  *'It  (the 
first  day  of  the  week)  is  called  the  Lord's  Day."   Rev.  1:  10. 

Johnson's  New  Universal  Cyclopedia:  "Lord's  Day,  a 
name  for  the  first  day  of  the  week,  derived  from  Rev.  1:  10." 

The  Greek  words  rendered  "Lord's  Day,"  [Rev.  1:  10,] 
are  Kiiriake  hemera.  Kiiriake^  the  adjective,  is  from  the 
noun  kurioits^  and  is  thus  defined: 

'-''Kuriakos — Of,  or  pertaining  to  the  Lord,  i.  e.^  the 
Messiah;  the  Lord's.  1  Cor.  11:  20;  Rev.  1:  1^:'— Green- 
field.  /- 

^''Kuriakos — Pertaining  to  the  Lord,  to  the  Lord  JesuE 
Christ:  e.  g.,  Jcuriakos  deipnon^  the  Lord's  supper.  [1  Cor. 
il:  20;]  ^^i^W^zl'^  A^m^r<3^,  the  Lord's  Day  [Rev.  1:  10."] — 
Hobinson. 

''^Kurihos — Of,  belonging  to,  concerning  a  lora  or  master, 
especially  belonging  to  the  Lord  (Christ);  Ylqucq  huriake 
hemera^  the  Lord's  Day." — Liddell  <&  Scott. 

*  'This  is  the  usual  name  of  Sunday  with  the  subsequent 
Greek  fathers." — Parkhurst. 

^''Kuriakos — Pertaining  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  the 
Lord  [1  Cor.  11:  20;  Rev.  1:  \^:'\-BagsteT's  Analytical 
Greek  Lexicon. 

So  we  might  go  all  through  the  lexicons,  finding  the  same 
definitions  in  all.  Not  a  single  one  refers  this  te;m  to  God 
the  Father,  but  without  an  exception  all  refer  it  to  the  Lord 
Jesus.  There  must  be  some  good  reason  for  this  universal 
agreement. 

So  the  commentators.  '  'The  Lord's  Day.  The  first  da^ 
of  the  week."    Dr.  Clark  on  Rev.  1:  10. 


192  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

**0n  the  Lord's  Day,  which  can  be  meant  of  no  othel 
than  the  day  on  which  the  Lord  Jesus  arose  from  the  dead, 
even  the  first  day  of  the  week."     Scott  on  Rev.  1:  10. 

Dr.  Barnes  says:  "This  was  a  day  particularly  devoted 
to  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  (a)  that  is  the  natural  meaning  of  the 
word  Lord  as  used  in  the  New  Testament;  and  (b)  if  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  was  intended  to  be  designated,  the  word 
Sabbath  would  have  been  used." 

Prof.  Hacket,  in  his  comments  on  Acts  1:  24,  says: 
^^Kuriakos^  when  taken  absolutely  in  the  New  Testament, 
refers  generally  to  Christ." 

"Lord's  Day,  namely,  the  first  day  of  the  week." — Bv/r- 
Jcetfs  Notes  on  the  N.  T. 

"The  Lord's  Day,  the  Christian  Sabbath,  the  first  day  of 
the  week." — Eclectic  Commenta/ry  on  Rev.  1:  10. 

"The  Lord's  Day.  The  first  day  of  the  week,  commem- 
orating the  Lord's  resurrection."  Family  Bible  with  notes, 
on  Rev.  1:  10.  Go  through  the  whole  list  of  commeataries, 
and  all  say  the  same  thing.  Have  they  no  ground  for  this  \ 
Yes,  good  enough  to  be  conclusive. 

1.  In  all  the  Bible,  the  seventh  day  is  never  once  called 
the  Lord's  Day. 

2.  "The  Sabbath"  was  the  term  invariably  used  for  the 
Jewish  seventh  day.  John  himself  always  used  that  term 
when  speaking  of  the  seventh  day.  See  John  5:  9,  10,  16, 
18;  7:  22,  23;  9:  14, 16;  19:  31.  Had  he  meant  that  day  in 
Rev.  1:  10,  he  certainly  would  have  said  "Sabbath  Day," 
not  Lord's  Day. 

3.  The  Greek  word  kuriaJcos^  is  a  new  word  originating 
in  the  New  Testament  and  found  onl)^  in  one  other  place,  1 
Cor.  11:  20,  "the  Lord's  supper."  Beyond  dispute  it 
here  applies  to  the  Lord  Jesus.  "The  adjective  huriake 
was  ^formed  by  the  apostles  themselves.'  [Winer,  N.  T. 
Gram.,  page  226.]  To  the  same  eflfect  testify  Liddell  and 


WHY   CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY.  193 

iSoott.  Of  the  mode  of  dealing  with  words  in  their  lexicon, 
they  say.  'We  have  always  sought  to  give  the  earliest 
authority  for  its  use  first.  Then,  if  no  change  was  intro- 
duced by  later  writers,  we  have  left  it  with  that  early  au- 
thority alone.'  (Pref.  page  20.)  When  we  turn  to  the  word 
kuriakosy  they  give  as  their  first  citation,  and  therefore,  as 
its  earliest  authorit}^,  the  New  Testament.  The  question 
now  arises  why  form  a  new  word  to  express  a  sacred  institu- 
tion, if  the  institution  itself  be  not  new  ?  Winer  says: 
'Entirely  new  words  and  phrases  were  constructed  mainly 
by  composition,  and  for  the  most  part  to  meet  some  sensible 
want.'  (Gram,  page  25.)  What  couccivable  seusiblo  want 
respecting  the  Sabbath  did  the  Old  Testament  leave  unex- 
pressed ?  Clearly  the  new  want  arose  from  a  nev/  insLitution. 
This  position  receives  additional  strength  from  the  fact  that 
the  only  other  New  Testament  use  of  kuriakos  is  found  in  1 
Cor.  11:  20,  designating  'the  Lord's  supper,'  which  is  certainly 
a  new  institution."  Peter  Vogel  in  debate  with  Waggoner, 
page  110.  This  is  a  strong  point  and  should  be  decisive. 
4.  As  the  gospel  was  a  new  institution,  it  necessitated 
the  use  of  new  terms.  So  we  have  "Christians,"  Acts  11: 
26,  as  the  new  name  for  God's  people;  ''apostles,"  "evange- 
lists," and  "deacons"  as  the  officers  of  tne  new  church; 
"baptism"  as  the  initiatory  rite  into  the  church,  the  "Lord's 
supper,"  1  Cor.  11:  20,  and  the  "Lord's  Day,"  as  institu- 
tions of  that  church.  Rev.  1:  10.  The  new  relations  as 
originated  by  the  gospel  could  not  be  expressed  by  the  old 
terms  of  the  law;  hence  new  words  and  new  terms  had  to  be 
used.  For  1,500  years  "Sabbath"  had  been  the  established 
name  of  the  weekly  rest  day  of  the  law  and  was  still  used  by 
all  for  the  seventh  day.  Hence  if  Christians  were  to  have 
a  new  weekly  rest  day  commemorating  gospel  facts,  they 
must  find  a  new  terna  for  it.  Hence  we  have  "Lord'» 
Day." 


194  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

UNDER  THE  GOSPEL  JESUS    IS    LORD. 

There  is  a  good  reason  why  in  the  gospel  the  "Lord's 
Day"  is  Christ's  day.  Officially  and  emphatically  he  is  the 
one  Lord  in  this  dispensation. 

The  term  Lord  apphes  to  Christ  about  four  hundred  and 
fifty  times  in  the  New  Testament.  Hence  in  the  gospel  all 
things  are  commonly  spoken  of  as  belonging  to  Jesus  as, 
"the  disciples  of  the  Lord,"  etc.  Acts  9:  1.  Now  read  to- 
gether "The  Lord's  body,"  1  Cor.  11:  29,  "this  cup  of  the 
Lord,"  "blood  of  the  Lord,"  Verse  27,  "Lord's  death," 
Verse  26,  "the  Lord's  table,"  1  Cor.  10:  21.  "The  Lord's 
supper."  1  Cor.  11: 20,  "the  Lord's  Day,"  Rev.  1: 10.  Do 
not  all  refer  to  the  same  Lord  ?  Of  course  they  do,  and  who 
can  fail  to  admit  it  ?  Under  the  official  jurisdiction  of 
Jesus  the  Lord,  come  of  necessity  all  the  institutions  now 
obligatory.  Hence  Lord's  Day  is  Christ's  Day,  and  that  is  the 
way  it  is  always  used  in  the  early  fathers  as  we  have  seen. 

Objections  answered:  The  seventh  day  is  called  the 
"Sabbath  of  the  Lord,"  Ex.  20:  10;  "my  holy  day,"  Isa. 
58:  13;  and  Jesus  says  he  was  "Lord  of  the  Sabbath  day," 
Mark  2:  28.  Isn't  that  the  Lord's  Day  ?  No;  for:  1.  The 
word  Sabbath  is  used  in  each  of  these  three  texts  but  is  not 
in  Rev.  1:  10.  2.  All  three  texts  were  spoken  before  tho 
cross  and  under  the  law,  but  Rev.  1:  10,  is  under  the  gospel. 
3.  The  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished  at  the  cross,  Col.  2: 
16;  Rom.  11:  5;  Gal.  4:  10,  sixty  years  before  John  wrote  on 
Patmos,  hence  that  could  not  have  been  the  Lord's  day  when 
John  wrote.  5.  The  fact  that  the  term  "Lord's  day"  im- 
mediately after  the  time  of  John,  whenever  used  by  the 
early  church,  was  always  applied  to  Sunday,  and  never  to 
the  Sabbath,  settles  its  meaning  in  Rev.  1:  10. 

But  it  is  objected  that  John  and  all  the  other  evangelists 
in  the  gospels  call  Sunday  simply  '  'the  first  day  of  the 
week,"  instead  of  the  Lord's  day.     Hence  if  John,  in  Rev» 


WHY  CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY.  195 

1:  10,  had  meant  that  day  he  would  have  said  "first  day  of 
the  week,"  as  he  did  in  the  gospel.  The  answer  is  easy. 
Jesus  predicted  that  he  would  be  put  to  death  and  rise  the 
third  day.  Each  evangelist  is  careful  to  show  that  the  pre- 
diction was  fulfilled.  Hence  they  were  particular  to  give  the 
names  of  those  three  days  as  they  were  called  by  the  Jews; 
that  is,  ''preparation  day,"  "Sabbath  day,"  and  ''first  day  of 
the  week."  This  is  a  sufficient  answer.  Moreover,  it  is  pro- 
bable that  the  resurrection  day  was  not  immediately  called 
the  Lord's  day;  but  by  the  time  John  wrote  the  Revelation, 
A.  D.  96,  it  had  come  to  be  the  well  known  name  for  that 
day,  as  we  have  shown. 

WHY   IT     IS     FITTING   THAT    THE   FIRST    DAY    OF   THE    WEEK 
SHOULD   BE   THE   jVIEMORIAL   DAY   OF     THE    GOSPEL. 

Why  do  people  keep  any  day  ?  Always  because  of 
what  occurred  on  that  day.  Why  were  the  Sabbath,  the 
passover,  and  other  days  kept  ?  Because  of  what  occurred 
on  those  days.  Why  do  we  observe  the  4:th  of  July, 
Christmas,  the  days  of  our  birth,  marriage,  etc  ?  It  is  im- 
portant, then,  to  inquire  if  anything  occurred  on  Sunday  to 
make  it  worthy  of  being  observed  by  Christians. 

Of  all  things  used  to  commemorate  past  events,  a  memor- 
ial day  Is  the  best.  A  monument,  a  statute,  a  college,  and 
the  like  are  local  and  only  seen  by  the  few ;  but  a  day  comes 
to  all  and  regularly.  Hence  with  what  enthusiasm  every 
nation  celebrates  its  memorial  days,  as  our  own  4th  of 
July.  So  religion  has  consecrated  memorial  days,  as  the 
Sabbath,  the  Passover,  Pentecost,  and  others  of  the  Jewish 
age.  And  shall  the  grandest  of  all  institutions,  the  gospel, 
have  no  memorial  day  ?  If  so  it  woukl  be  the  one  only  ex- 
ception among  all  the  religions  of  the  world  and  a  great  loss 
to  the  church.  If  the  material  creation  merited  a  memorial 
day,  how  much  more  the  spiritual  redemption  of  the  race  'i 


196       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

But  why  theorize  ?  It  is  the  grandest  and  best  known 
fact  in  all  the  earth  to-day  that  the  Christian  church  has  a 
memorial  day,  the  day  of  the  Lord's  resurrection,  the  Lord's 
day.  It  is  regularly  observed  in  every  nation  under  Heaven. 
We  have  already  shown  how  this  day  has  always  from  the 
very  days  of  the  apostles,  been  regarded  as  a  memorial  day. 
It  only  remains  to  inquire,  if  it  was  the  one  day  best 
adapted  to  this  purpose.  Study  the  life  of  Jesus,  scan  every 
noted  day  in  it,  in  the  year,  in  the  month,  in  the  week,  and 
it  must  be  admitted  by  all  that  no  other  than  the  resurrection 
day  could  be  thought  of  for  a  moment.  Think  over  the 
days  of  the  week.  How  meager  are  the  events  of  any 
other  day  compared  with  those  of  the  resurrection  day. 
Monday  what  ?  Tuesday  ?  Wednesday  ?  Thursday  his 
betrayal;  Friday  his  death;  Saturday  in  the  grave.  Would 
we  select  any  of  these  days  as  a  memorial  day  for  a  rejoicing 
church  ?     Surely  not. 

"On  the  Jewish  Sabbath  the  Saviour  lay  under  the  powder 
of  death.  It  was  to  his  disciples  a  day  of  restlessness  and 
gloom.  The  remembrance  of  that  day  would  always  be  to 
them  grievous.  The  thought  of  the  agony,  the  cross,  the 
bitter  cry,  the  expiring  groan,  and  the  mournful  sepulcher 
could  only  create  a  feeling  of  sorrow.  Forevermore  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  day  was  despoiled  of  its  gladness  to  the 
Christian  heart."    The  Lord's  Day  Our  Sabbath,  page  21. 

It  was  the  resurrection  day  on  which  every  thing  turned. 
Jesus  might  have  lived  the  pure  life  he  did,  might  have 
wrought  all  the  miracles  he  did,  might  have  died  on  the  cross 
as  he  did,  might  have  been  buried  as  he  was,  yet  all  this 
would  not  have  saved  a  soul  if  he  had  not  risen  from  the 
dead.  "If  Christ  be  not  raised,  your  faith  is  vain;  ye  are 
yet  in  your  sins.  Then  they  also  which  are  fallen  asleep  in 
Christ  are  perished."  1  Cor.  15:  17-18.  The  resurrection 
completed  the  work  which  made  Jesus  the  Saviour  of  the 


WHY  CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY.  197 

world.  Jesus  himself  when  asked  for  the  evidence  of  hi.« 
authority,  pointed  to  his  resurrection  on  the  third  day  as  th^ 
proof  of  it.  John  2:  18-21;  Matt.  12:  38-40;  16:  21. 
This  test  of  his  divinity  was  well  known  to  all,  for  the 
Pharisees  said  to  Pilate.  "Sir,  we  remember  that  thut  de- 
ceiver said,  while  he  was  yet  alive,  After  three  days  I  will 
rise  again."  Matt.  27:  63. 

When  Jesus  died,  the  hope  of  his  disciples  was  buried 
with  him,  Luke  24:  17,  21,  and  the  holy  women  were  heart- 
broken. But  the  wicked  Jews  rejoiced  and  Satan  triumphed 
while  the  angels  mourned.  If  ever  the  devil  had  hope  it 
was  while  Jesus  was  dead  during  that  Sabbath  day.  But  as 
Sunday  begins  to  dawn,  a  mighty  angel  like  lightning  de- 
scends, the  earth  quakes,  the  grave  opens  and  Christ  arises 
a  conqueror  over  Death,  Hell,  and  the  Grave.  Matt.  28:  1-4. 
Satan's  last  hope  is  gone;  the  wicked  Jews  are  dismayed;  the 
holy  women  are  glad;  the  hope  of  the  disciples  is  revived; 
angels  rejoice;  the  salvation  of  a  world  is  secured;  the  suf- 
ferings and  humiliation  of  the  Son  of  God  are  ended;  and  he 
walks  forth  the  Almighty  Saviour,  the  Lord  of  all.  Never 
such  a  morning  dawned  on  this  lost  world  before.  No  won- 
der it  became  the  memorial  day  of  the  church.  It  was  im- 
possible to  be  otherwise. 

Paul  says  that  Jesus  was  * 'declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,"  Rom.  1:4.  It  was  this  that 
proved  his  divinity.  So  that  there  will  be  a  day  of  Judg- 
ment God  "hath  given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he 
hath  raised  them  from  the  dead."  Acts  17:  31. 

1.  On  Sunday  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead.     Mark  16:  9. 

2.  On  this  day  he  first  appeared  to  his  disciples. 

3.  On  this  day  he  met  them  at  difierent  places  and  repeat- 
edly. Mark  16:  9-11;  Matt.  28:  8-10;  Luke  24:  34;  Mark 
16:  12-13;  John  20:  19-23. 


198  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED, 

4.     On  this  day  Jesus  blessed  them,  John  20:  19. 
6.     On  this  day  he  imparted  to  them  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.    John  20:  22. 

6.  Here  he  first  commissioned  them  to  preach  the  gospel 
to  all  the  world.     John  20:  21;  with  Mark  16:  9-15. 

7.  Here  he  gave  his  apostles  authority  to  legislate  for 
and  guide  his  church.     John  20:  23. 

8.  Peter  sa3's  God  *'hath  begotten  us  again  unto  a  lively 
hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead."  1 
Pet.  1:  3. 

9.  On  this  day  Jesus  ascended  to  his  father,  was  seated 
at  his  right  hand  and  made  head  over  all.  John  20:  IT; 
Eph.  1:  20. 

10.  On  thai  day  many  of  the  dead  saints  arose  from  the 
grave.  Matt.  27:  52-53. 

11.  Here  this  day  became  the  day  of  joy  and  rejoicing  to 
the  disciples.  "Then  were  the  disciples  glad  when  they  saw 
the  Lord."  John  20:  20.  "While  they  yet  believed  not 
for  joy."     Luke  24:  41. 

12.  On  that  day  the  gospel  of  a  risen  Christ  was  first 
preached,  saying:  ''The  Lord  is  risen  indeed."  Luke 
24:  34. 

13.  On  that  Sunday  Jesus  himself  set  the  example  of 
preaching  the  gospel  of  his  resurrection  by  explaining  all  the 
scriptures  on  that  subject  and  by  opening  the  minds  of  the 
disciples  to  understand  it. 

"Then  opened  he  their  understanding,  that  they  might  un- 
derstand the  Scriptures."    Luke  24:  27,  45. 

14.  Finally  on  this  day  the  purchase  of  our  redemption 
was  completed. 

With  all  these  thrilling  events  of  gospel  facts  crowded 
into  that  one  resurrection  day,  making  it  memorable  above 
all  days  in  the  history  of  the  world,  how  could  it  but  become 
the  great  day  in  the  memory  of  the  church  ?    The  facts  of 


WHY   CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY.  199 

that  one  day  became  the  theme  of  the  church  ever  since. 
The  great  battle  between  the  apostles  and  the  unbelieving 
Jews  was  concerning  the  events  of  that  day;  did  Jesus  rise, 
or  did  he  not  ?  The  Jews  ''gave  large  money"  to  disprove 
it,  Matt.  28:  12,  while  the  apostles  built  the  church  and 
staked  their  lives  upon  it.  Thus  in  God's  own  providence, 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  thrown  into  the  shade,  while  all  the 
hopes  and  thoughts  and  arguments  and  songs  of  the  new 
church  were  necessarily  turned  to  another  day,  the  resurrec- 
tion day. 

Memorable  day,  one  that  should  stir  the  heart  of  every 
Christian  and  move  sinners  to  repentance  as  indeed  it  has 
done  every  week  from  that  day  on.  "The  Lord's  Day," 
how  appropriate  the  title  for  that  grand  day  on  which  our 
Lord  triumphed  over  all  and  laid  deep  and  secure  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Christian  church.  Most  appropriately,  then,  has 
it  become  the  one  memorial  day  of  the  gospel,  the  day  of 
gladness  and  rejoicing.  Shall  we,  then,  call  it  a  pagan  day  ? 
the  pope's  day?  the  mark  of  the  beast?  a  day  hateful 
to  God  and  an  abomination  to  Christ?  God  forbid.  It 
was  said  of  Jesus,  "What  evil  hath  he  done?"  So  we 
ask,  "AYhat  evil  has  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day  ever 
done?"  What  man,  or  church,  or  nation,  has  ever  been  made 
worse  by  it  ?  Nay,  verily,  this  is  not  its  character  nor  its 
record. 

THE   EIGHTH  DAY   OF  JOHN   20:  26. 

I  have  become  satisfied  myself  that  the  meeting  of  Christ 
with  his  disciples  "after  eight  days,"  John  20:  26,  was  on 
Sunday.  He  had  met  with  them  the  previous  Sunday 
evening.  Verse  19.  Here  "after  eight  days"  he  meets  them 
again.  Sabbatarians  count  up  and  satisfy  themselves  that 
this  occurred  on  Monday  or  Tuesday.  But  compare  this 
with  the  expression  "after  three  days."  The  number  of  the 
day  after  his  death  on  which  Christ  was  to  rise  is  given  in 


200  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  RENOUNCED. 

three  ways.  1.  "In  three  days,"  Matt.  26:  61;  27:  40.  3. 
"The  third  day,"  Matt.  16:  21;  20:  19.  3,  "After  three 
days,"  Mark  8:  31.  All  these  expressions  mean  the  same. 
He  died  Friday  and  rose  Sunday;  hence  Sunday  was  "three 
days,"  "the  third  day"  and  "after  three  days"  in  their  com- 
mon way  of  speaking.  In  the  same  way,  "In  eight  days," 
"on  the  eighth  day"  and  "after  eight  days"  would  all  be  the 
same,  that  is  the  next  Sunday,  or  eighth  day. 

What  strengthens  this  position  is  the  well  known  fact  that 
the  term,  "the  eighth  day,"  became  a  common  term  for  the 
resurrection  day  among  all  the  early  Christian  fathers.  Thus 
Eld.  Andrews,  the  seventh-day  historian,  writing  of  Diony- 
sius,  A.  D.  ITO,  says  of  Sunday,  "Every  vn-iter  who  pre- 
cedes Dionysius  calls  it  first  day  of  the  week,  ^eighth  day,' 
or  Sunday."  Testimony  of  the  Fathers,  page  52.  Thus 
Barnabas,  A.  D.  120  says:  "We  keep  the  eighth  day  with 
joyfulness,  the  day  also,  on  which  Jesus  rose  again  from  the 
dead. "  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  Chapter  XV.  Justin  Martyr, 
A.  D.  140  says:  "The  first  day  after  the  Sabbath,  remain- 
ing the  first  of  all  the  days,  is  called  however,  the  eighth,  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  all  the  days  of  the  cycle,  and  [yet] 
remains  the  first."  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  Chapter  XLI. 
And  Cyprian,  A.  D.  250,  says  'Hhe  eighth  day,  that  is  the 
first  day  after  the  Sabbath,  and  the  Lord's  day."  Epistle  58, 
Section  4.  Where  did  the  early  church  get  the  idea  that  the 
eighth  day  was  the  Lord's  day,  if  not  from  the  apostles  ? 
Evidently,  then,  the  meeting  in  John  20:  26,  was  on  Sun- 
day. The  only  visits  of  Jesus  with  his  disciples  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  saw  fit  to  date  carefully  are  those  occurring  on 
Sunday. 

PENTECOST,   ACTS  2. 

That  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Acts  2,  fell  on  Sunday  has 
been  believed  and  maintained  by  Christians  in  all  ages. 
1.  The  time  of  Pentecost  was  thus  stated:     "  Ye  shal' 


WHY  CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY.  201 

oount  unto  you  from  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath  from  the 
day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave  offering,  seven 
Sabbaths  shall  be  complete,  even  unto  the  morrow  after  the 
seventh  Sabbath  shall  ye  number  fifty  days."  Lev.  23:15, 
16.  The  day  after  the  seventh  Sabbath  would  certainly  be 
the  first  day  of  the  week. 

2.  The  Karaite  Jews  held  that  Pentecost  according  to 
the  law  must  always  be  on  Sunday. 

3.  Pentecost  means  Ji; ft ieth.,  the  fiftieth  day  after  the  first 
Sabbath  where  they  began  to  count,  hence  it  must  faU  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week. 

4.  Dr.  Scott's  commentary  says;  *'As  Jesus  arose  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  on 
the  same,  seven  weeks,  or  on  the  fiftieth  day  afterwards." 
On  Acts  2:1. 

5.  So  plain  is  the  point  that  even  the  Seventh-Day 
Adventists  themselves  have  admitted  it.  Thus  Elder  U. 
Smith:  *'The  sheaf  of  first  fruits  was  waved  on  the  six- 
teenth day  of  the  first  month.  This  met  its  antitype  in  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord,  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept, 
the  sixteenth  of  the  first  month.  *  *  *  The  feast  of 
weeks,  or  Pentecost,  occurred  on  the  fiftietli  day  from  the 
offering  of  the  first  fruits.  The  antitype  of  this  feast,  the 
Pentecost  of  Acts  2,  was  fulfilled  on  that  very  day,  fifty  days 
from  the  resurrection  of  Christy  in  the  outpouring  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  upon  the  disciples."  The  Sanctuary,  page  283, 
284.  Fifty  days  from  the  resurrection  of  Christ  would  be 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  This  is  just  vv^hat  God  directed; 
it  was  to  be  on  the  morrow  after  the  seventh  Sabbath  and  on 
the  fiftieth  day.     Lev.  23:15,  16. 

6.  So  the  Eclectic  Commentary:  ''It  happened  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week."     On  Acts  2. 

7.  ' '  Pentecost  in  that  year  must  have  fallen  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week."    The  Bible  Commentary  on  Acts  £. 


302  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

t 

8.  "That  the  day  of  Pentecost  fell  on  Sunday  is  und© 
niable,  because  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  upon  a  Sun' 
day,  and  Pentecost  was  the  fiftieth  day  from  the  resurrec- 
tion."   Bramhall's  Works,  V.  51. 

9.  *'  It  consequently  occurred  in  the  year  in  which  Christ 
died  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  or  our  Sunday."  Lange 
on  Acts  2:1. 

10.  ''The  Pentecost  day  was  Sunday."  Wheadon's 
Commentary  on  Acts  2:1. 

Notice  now  the  importance  of  that  day.  Jesus  told  the 
disciples  to  tarry  in  Jerusalem  till  endued  with  power  from 
on  high.  Luke  24:41:9.  They  must  begin  their  preaching 
there.  Verse  47.  On  that  Pentecost  they  were  to  be  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  1:5.  In  the  last  days  of 
Judah  and  Jerusalem  the  law  was  to  go  forth  out  of  Zion 
and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem  while  all  nations 
were  gathered  to  it.  Isa  2:  1-4.  All  this  was  fulfilled  on 
Pentecost.  The  Holy  Ghost  came  on  the  disciples  in  mighty 
power;  then  they  began  preaching  the  gospel  and  thousands 
were  converted.  This  was  only  the  first  fruits  of  what  has 
occurred,  in  fact,  on  succeeding  Sundays  ever  since.  It  has 
been  the  great  day  of  power  and  of  conversions  in  the  church 
from  that  day  on.  Thus  God  signally  honored  Sunday  at 
the  very  opening  of  the  gospel  as  he  has  continued  to  do 
ever  since. 

ACTS  20:  6,  7. 

All  agree  that  the  disciples  had  some  regular  day  for 
meetings.  Paul  said:  *'Not  forsaking  the  assembling  of 
ourselves  together."  Heb.  10:25.  This  implies  a  regular 
time  and  a  stated  place  for  meetings.  Reproving  them  for 
making  the  Lord's  supper  a  feast,  Paul  says:  ''  When  ye 
come  together  therefore  into  one  place,  this  is  not  to  eat  the 
Lord's  supper,"  but  rather  to  feast,  1  Cor.  11:20.  This 
fadicates  that  they  had  a  place  and  a  time  to  come  together 


WHY  CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY.  203 

for  the  supper.  There  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  the 
Christians  ever  had  the  Lord's  supper  or  held  distinctively 
Christian  worship  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  In  every  case 
"where  meetings  on  the  Sabbath  are  mentioned  it  is  in  con- 
nection with  the  regular  Jewish  worship.  There  is  no  record 
that  Christians  ever  met  alone  for  worship  on  that  day. 
They  certainly  could  not  have  had  the  Lord's  supper  in  the 
synagogues  on  the  Sabbath  with  the  Jews.  Nor  is  there 
the  least  intimation  that  it  was  ever  tried.  They  must, 
therefore,  have  met  by  themselves  in  some  other  place  than 
the  synagogue  and  on  some  other  day.  Turning  to  Acts 
20:  6,  7,  we  read:  ^'And  we  sailed  away  from  Phillippi  after 
the  days  of  unleavened  bread,  and  came  unto  them  to  Troas 
in  ^Ye  days;  where  we  abode  seven  days.  And  upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  when  the  disciples  came  together  to 
break  bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on 
the  morrow." 

Here  they  met  by  themselves,  and  in  an  upper  room,  for 
the  Lord's  supper.  The  time  is  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
The  incidental  manner  in  which  it  is  mentioned  shows  that 
what  they  did  was  a  well  understood  custom  among  them — 
"  When  they  came  together  to  break  bread  upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week."  Three  things  are  mentioned:  1.  They 
came  together.  It  is  mentioned  as  though  all  knew  it  was 
common  for  them  to  do  this.  2.  To  break  bread.  This 
again  is  stated  as  though  all  knew  that  this,  too,  was  a  com- 
mon practice  with  Christians.  3.  Upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  Like  the  other  two  items,  this  is  mentioned  as  a  well 
understood  practice  among  them;  hence  no  explanation  is 
given  of  it.  It  is  said  that  the  disciples  "came  together," 
or  assembled  themselves  together,  a  common  phrase  for  their 
church  meetings.  Thus  Peter  ''went  in  and  found  many 
that  were  come  together."  Acts  10:27.  *'  Ye  come  together 
not  for  the  better,     *    ^    *    When  ye  come  together  in 


204       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVBNTI8M  BENOUNCBD. 

the  church."  1  Cor.  11:17,  18.  ''It  therefore  the  whole 
church  be  come  together  into  one  place."  "  When  ye  coma 
together  every  one  of  you  hath  a  psalm."  1  Cor.  14:23,  26. 
"Not  forsaking  the  asserribling  of  yourselves  together." 
Heb.  10:25.  This  indicates,  therefore,  their  customary 
meeting. 

Notice  the  further  fact,  verse  6,  that  Paul  was  there  seven 
days,  yet  no  notice  whatever  is  taken  of  the  Sabbath  Day, 
not  even  to  name  it,  while  the  first  day  is  prominently 
noticed.  The  breaking  of  bread  and  the  assembling  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  it  will  be  noticed,  are  connected 
together.  Notice  further,  that  though  Paul  was  there  a 
whole  week  and  over  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  yet  the  Lord's 
supper  is  not  administered  until  Sunday.  This  shows  that 
for  some  reason  Sunday  was  regarded  by  them  as  the  only 
proper  day  for  it.  "It  shows  further,  that  Paul  tarried 
there  several  days  waiting  for  the  regular  day  of  worship  to 
come,  the  first  day  of  the  week."  "And  the  reason  assigned 
for  their  coming  together  was  to  hreak  hread^  and  not 
because  Paul  was  there." 

Sabbatarians  argue  that  this  meeting  at  Troas  was  on 
Saturday  evening  and  hence  Paul  went  on  his  journey  Sun- 
day morning.  Even  if  this  were  so,  it  would  not  prove  that 
Paul  did  not  regard  Sunday,  for,  hastening  if  possible  to  be 
at  Jerusalem  on  Pentecost,  verse  16,  he  had  to  go  when  the 
vessel  went  whether  he  liked  to  or  not,  for  he  was  only  a  pas- 
senger. See  verse  13,  and  chapter  21:  1,  2.  But  it  is  more 
probable  that  Luke  reckoned  time  after  the  Roman  method, 
from  midnight  to  midnight,  as  John  did  in  John  20:19. 
"  The  same  day  at  evening,  being  the  first  day  of  the  week." 
Here  Sunday  evening  is  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  first 
day.  Luke  wrote  for  the  Gentiles,  was  a  learned  man  him- 
self, and  wrote  Acts  long  after  the  resurrection,  when  Roman 
ways  were  coming  more  to  be  adopted.    Moreover  the 


WHY  CHRISTIANS  KEEP   SUNDAY.  205 

meeting  at  Troas  was  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  and  the}/ 
departed  "on  the  morrow,"  verse  7,  which  surely  could 
not  have  been  on  the  same  day. 

Prof.  A.  Rauschenbush,  of  Roschester  Theological  Semin- 
ary, says:  "These  events  did  not  occur  in  the  time  of  the 
Old  Testament,  but  of  the  New;  not  in  Palestine,  but  upon 
the  west  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  nearly  a  thousand  miles  away. 
Furthermore,  this  was  the  time  of  Roman  rule,  and  upon 
every  land  and  people  that  the  Romans  conquered  they 
imposed,  not  only  their  laws,  but  also  their  mode  of  reckon- 
ing time.  Now,  from  their  earliest  history,  the  Romans 
began  the  day  at  midnight.  At  this  visit  of  Paul  to  Troas 
the  west  coast  of  Asia  Minor  had  been  in  their  possession 
for  one  hundred  and  eighty  years."  Saturday  or  Sunday, 
page  14.  Prof.  Hachett,  on  Acts  20:7,  says:  "As  Luke 
Lad  mingled  so  much  with  foreign  nations  and  was  writing 
for  Gentile  readers,  he  would  be  very  apt  to  designate  the 
time  in  accordance  with  their  practice;  so  that  his  evening 
or  night  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  would  be  the  end  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath  and  the  morning  of  his  departure  that  of 
Monday. " 

This  is  rendered  almost  certain  by  the  fact  that  Acts  is 
addressed  to  "  Theophilus, "  who  w^as  not  a  Jew,  but  a 
Roman  living  in  Italy.  That  the  early  Christians  partook 
of  the  Lord's  supper  every  Sunday,  is  acknowledged  on  all 
hands. 

Dr  Scott,  on  Acts  20:7,  says:  "This  ordinance  seems  to 
have  been  constantly  administered  every  Lord's  Day." 

Shafi'-Herzog  Encyclopedia,  Art.  "  Lord's  Supper"  says: 
* '  Originally  the  communion  was  administered  every  day, 
then  every  Sunday." 

"  It  is  well  known  that  the  primitive  Christians  adminis- 
tered the  Eucharist  every  Lord's  Day." — Doddridge. 

"In  the  primitive  times  it  was  the  custom  of  many 


206  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

Churches  to  receive  the  Lord's  supper  every  Lord's  Day.'*— 
Matthew  Henry. 

"  Every  first  day  of  the  week." — Carson. 

"  All  antiquity  concurs  in  evincing  that,  for  the  first  three 
centuries,  all  the  churches  broke  bread  once  a  week. " — Alex. 
Ca^npbell^  in  ' '  Christian  System, "  page  325.  Dr.  Albert 
Barnes  on  this  verse  says:  "  It  is  probable  that  the  apostles 
and  early  Christians  celebrated  the  Lord's  supper  on  every 
Lord's  Day." 

The  Apostolic  Constitutions,  about  A.  D.  250,  says  that 
on  ''the  Lord's  Day  meet  more  diligently  ^  -^  ^  [par- 
taking of]  the  oblation  the  sacrifice,  the  gift  of  the  holy 
food."  Book  II,  section  7,  paragraph  55.  Again,  ''We 
solemnly  assemble  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  the  resurrection 
on  the  Lord's  Day."     Book  VII,  section  2,  paragraph  36. 

Fabian,  bishop  of  Rome,  A.  D.  250:  "  On  each  Lord's 
Day  the  oblation  of  the  altar  should  be  made  by  all  men  and 
women  in  bread  and  wine."  Decrees  of  Fabian,  book  V, 
chapter  7. 

These  testimonies  throw  great  light  upon  the  passages  in 
the  New  Testament  where  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the 
Lord's  Day,  is  referred  to.  They  show  that  a  weekly  cele- 
bration of  that  day  was  established  in  all  churches  by  the 
apostles  themselves.  If  Adventists  could  find  anywhere 
after  the  resurrection  a  gathering  of  Christians  only  for 
worship  on  the  Sabbath,  it  would  be  used  by  them  as  evi- 
dence of  a  custom  in  favor  of  Saturday.  Let  them  make 
the  same  deduction  now  in  favor  of  Sunday. 

1  COR.  16:  1-2. 

With  Acts  20  let  us  read  1  Cor.  16: 1-2:  "Now  concern- 
ing the  collection  for  the  saints,  as  I  have  given  order  to  the 
churches  of  Galatia,  even  so  do  ye.  Upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in  store,  as  God 


WHY   CHRISTIANS  KEEP  SUNDAY.  207 

hath  prospered  him,  that  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I 
come."  What  Paul  here  directs  the  Corinthians  to  do  he 
had  also  estabhshed  among  the  churches  at  Galatia,  verse  1. 
And- this  letter  is  addressed  to  "all  that  in  every  place  call 
up>on  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  Chapter  1:  2. 
He  also  says  that  what  he  writes  must  be  received  as  "the 
commandments  of  the  Lord."  Chapter  14:  37.  Here,  then, 
is  an  inspired  commandment  of  the  Lord  Jesus  touching  the 
first  day  of  the  week  and  it  is  to  all  that  call  upon  his  name, 
This  requires  a  definite  act  of  religious  duty  to  be  performed 
regularly  upon  each  recurring  Sunday,  for  this  did  not  relate 
to  simply  one  first  day,  but  to  each  one  as  it  came.  They 
are  to  lay  apart  on  that  day  a  portion  for  the  poor  out  of 
what  God  gives  them.  This  impjies  that  it  would  be  with 
them  a  day  of  lesiure  and  devotion  when  they  would  be  at 
home,  have  the  time,  and  be  in  a  proper  frame  of  mind  to  do 
this  benevolent  act — an  act  of  worship,  "a  sacrifice  accepta- 
ble, well  pleasing  to  God."  Phil.  4:  18.  Of  old  God  had 
said  none  "shall  appear  before  the  Lord  empty."  Deut.  16: 
16.  On  1  Cor.  16:  1-2,  Dr.  Clark  remarks:  "The  apostle 
follows  here  the  rule  of  the  synagogue;  it  w^as  the  regular 
custom  among  the  Jews  to  make  their  collections  for  the 
poor  on  the  Sabbath  day."  For  this  purpose  they  had  "  'The 
purse  of  the  alms,'  or  what  we  would  term  the  jpoor's  hox. 
This  is  what  the  apostle  seems  to  mean  when  he  sa3^s,  let 
him  lay  by  him  in  store;  let  him  put  it  in  the  alms  purse  or 
in  the  poor's  box."  On  this  text  Dr.  Barnes  truthfully 
remarks:  "There  can  have  been  no  reason  why  this  day 
should  have  been  designated  except  that  it  was  a  day  set 
apart  to  religion  and  therefore  deemed  a  proper  day  for  the 
exercise  of  benevolence  towards  others."  Why  did  Paul 
name  Sunday  rather  than  an}'  oilier  day  in  the  week  if  it  was 
not  a  religious  day  ? 
Adventists  say  that  this  does  not  imply  any  meeting  that 


208  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

day.  They  were  only  to  lay  by  at  home.  But  this  would 
defeat  the  very  object  Paul  had  in  view,  Paul  said  he 
hasted  to  be  at  Jerusalem.  He  could  not  b6  delayed  to 
gather  up  collections  when  he  came.  So  they  were  to  have 
them  all  collected  and  ready  when  he  came.  But  if  these 
gifts  were  all  at  their  homes  then  the  collection  would  have 
to  be  made  after  he  came,  just  the  thing  he  commanded  to 
avoid,  "that  there  be  no  collections  when  I  come."  Verse  2. 
Dr.  Machnight  renders  it:  "On  the  first  day  of  every  week, 
let  each  of  you  lay  somewhat  by  itself  according  as  he  may 
be  prospered,  putting  it  into  the  treasury,  that  when  I  come, 
there  may  be  no  collections." 

We  have  now  found  four  things  which  the  disciples  did  on 
Sunday. 

1.  They  assembled  together.  2.  They  had  a  sermon.  3. 
They  had  the  Lord's  supper.  4.  They  gave  for  the  poor. 
Opening  to  the  very  first  of  the  early  Christian  fathers  we 
find  it  was  the  custom  of  all  Christians  to  do  just  these  things 
every  Sunday.  Thus  Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  140,  in  his 
Apology,  Chapter  LXVn,  says:  "And  on  the  day  called 
Sunday,  all  who  live  in  cities  or  in  the  country  gather  to- 
gether in  one  place,  and  the  memories  of  the  apostles  or  the 
writings  of  the  prophets  are  read,  *  *  *  bread  and 
wine  and  water  are  brought,  and  the  president  in  like  man- 
ner ofiers  prayers  and  thanksgiving,  according  to  his  ability, 
and  the  people  assent,  saying.  Amen;  and  there  is  a  distribu- 
tion to  each,  and  a  participation  of  that  over  which  thanks 
have  been  given,  and  to  those  who  are  absent  a  portion  is 
sent  by  the  deacons.  And  they  who  are  well  to  do,  and 
willing,  give  what  each  thinks  fit;  and  what  is  collected  is 
deposited  with  the  president,  who  succors  the  orphans  and 
widows." 

This  shows  that  our  conclusion  from  the  above  texts  was 
correct.     Thus  as  we  see  on  opening  to  the  early  apostolicaJ 


WHY   CHRISTIANS  KEEP   SUNDAY.  209 

fathers  immediately  following  the  apostles,  we  find  all 
Christians  of  all  sects  in  all  i)arts  of  the  world  holding  their 
meetings  on  Sunday  in  remembrance  of  the  resurrection, 
just  as  we  do  now.  This  shows  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt 
that  the  custom  was  established  by  the  apostles  themselves, 
and  that  by  the  authority  of  Christ.     John  20  :  21-23. 

Consider  this  important  fact  witnessed  the  world  over  to- 
day. We  have  five  abiding  witnesses  that  Christ  lived,  all 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  1st.  The  Church.  *'  I 
will  build  my  church."  Matt.  16:18.  2nd.  New  Testament. 
John  "  wrote  these  things."  John  21  :  24.  3d.  Baptisin. 
"  Go  baptizing  them."  Matt.  28  :  19.  4th.  Lord's  Supper, 
1  Cor.  11 :  20 ;  "  Eat  the  Lord's  Supper."  5th.  Lord's 
Da/y.  "  On  the  Lord's  Day."  Eev.  1 :  10.  There  are 
now  about  500,000,000  people  professing  faith  in  Christ, 
scattered  among  all  nations  differing  in  doctrine  almost 
endlessly.  This  difference  extends  back  ahnost  to  the 
days  of  the  apostles.  Yet  all  these  differing  sects  hold  in 
common  these  five  memorials  of  Christ's  life — the  Church, 
the  New  Testament,  Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the 
Lord's  Day.  The  Eastern  Church,  the  Armenian,  Syrian, 
Roman  Catholic,  Episcopal,  Lutheran,  Methodist,  Baptist, 
and  hundreds  more,  all  hold  sacredly  these  five  things  in 
some  form.  All  ao^ree  that  all  five  beo^an  back  with  the 
apostles  and  came  from  their  hands.  There  is  perfect 
agreement  on  this,  viz.,  that  one  is  as  old  as  the  other, 
that  all  have  come  down  hand  in  hand  together.  These 
500,000,000  all  firmly  believe  and  teach  this.  This  unan- 
imous agreement  must  be  accounted  for  in  some  reason- 
able way.  It  cannot  be  ignored  nor  bluffed  off  lightly. 
There  can  be  only  one  truthful  answer— all  must  have 
started  together  at  the  beginning  and  have  kept  together 
till  this  day.     And  all  history  conrtrms  it. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

9ID  THE  POPE  CHANGE  THE  SABBATH? 

The  one  great  point  in  the  Sabbath  question  upon  which 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  stake  the  most,  upon  which  they  in- 
sist the  strongest,  which  they  repeat  the  most  frequently 
and  the  most  confidently,  is  that  the  pope  of  Rome  did 
change  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  day  to  the  first  day. 
They  assert  that  this  is  all  the  authority  Sunday-keepers 
have  for  observing  that  day.  Sunday  is  the  pope's  Sabbath, 
and  Sunday-keeping  is  the  mark  of  the  beast.  Rev.  14:  9-12, 
a  terrible  sin  in  the  sight  of  God.  See  almost  any  work  on 
the  Sabbath  published  by  them. 

They  claim  that  Sunday  keeping  came  from  the  pagans 
through  the  pope  into  the  church.  Thus:  "The  name,  origin, 
authority,  and  sacredness  of  the  Sunday  institution  are  alto- 
gether and  only  pagan."  Replies  to  Elder  Canright,  page 
133.  Then  the  pope  changed  the  Sabbath  into  the  Sunday. 
Mrs.  White  says:  ''The  pope  had  changed  it  [the  Sabbath] 
from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week."  Again: 
*'The  pope  has  changed  the  day  of  rest  from  the  seventh  to 
first  day."  Early  Writings,  pages  26,  55.  Again:  "Here 
we  find  the  mark  of  the  beast.  The  very  act  of  changing 
the  Sabbath  into  Sunday,  on  the  part  of  the  Catholic 
church,  without  any  authority  from  the  Bible."  The  Mark 
of  the  Beast,  page  23.  "Sunday  keeping  must  be  the 
'mark  of  the  beast.'"  The  Marvel  of  Nations,  by  U. 
Smith,  page  183.  To  this  claim  Mrs.  White  has  set  the 
seal  of  divine  inspiration.  She  says:  "The  change  of  the 
Sabbath  is  the  sign  or  mark  of  the  authority  of  the  Romish 

(210) 


DID  THE   POPE   CHANGE   THE   SABBATH?  211 

church. "  *  'The  keeping  of  the  counterfeit  Sabbath  is  the 
reception  of  the  mark. "  Great  Controversy,  Vol.  4,  page 
281. 

This  settles  it  with  every  Seventh-Day  Adventist.  My 
experience  is  that  a  belief  of  this  as  a  fact  induces  more 
persons  to  give  up  Sunday  for  Saturday  than  all  other  argu- 
ments made  by  the  seventh-day  people.  Convince  a  man 
that  Sunday-keeping  is  only  a  Catholic  institution,  a  rival 
to  the  Lord's  Sabbath  and  hateful  to  God,  and  of  course,  if 
he  has  any  conscience,  he  will  keep  it  no  longer.  Every  one 
of  them  accepts  this  as  a  historical  fact  in  fulfillment  of 
Daniel  7:  25.  Indeed,  this  is  the  one  main  pillar  in  their 
whole  system,  upon  which  all  the  rest  depends.  If  their 
position  upon  this  point  is  false,  then  their  whole  system  is 
also  false,  as  they  will  readily  admit.  On  this  Elder  Wag- 
goner says:  * 'Elder  Canright  did  not  exaggerate  when  he 
said  that  we  consider  this  a  material  question.  We  do  in- 
deed so  consider  it."  RepUes  to  Elder  Canright,  page 
165.  Then  they  should  be  able  to  prove  the  point  very 
plainly.  They  claim  to  be  raised  up  to  preach  against  this 
change  of  the  Sabbath  by  the  pope. 

The  unmingled  wrath  of  God  is  soon  to  be  poured  out 
upon  all  who  continue  to  keep  Sunday,  the  Pope's  Sabbath. 
It  would  seem  that  such  a  radical  position  should  be 
supported  by  the  clearest  evidence.  They  claim  that  it  is  a 
historical  fact  that  somewhere  during  the  first  five  centuries 
after  Christ,  the  pope  did  change  the  Sabbath  to  Sunday. 
If  this  be  so,  they  should  be  able  to  produce  reliable  histori- 
cal proof  for  it,  giving  the  time^  manner^  place^  persons^ 
facts  and  reasons  for  so  remarkable  an  occurrence.  I  have 
before  me  two  books  written  expressly  to  prove  this  asser- 
tion. They  are:  "Who  Changed  the  Sabbath  ?"  24  psiges, 
and  "Marvel  of  Nations,"  282  pages.  But  the  only  direct 
proof  offered  is  simply  quotations  from  Catholio  Catechisms^ 


212  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

wliich  claim  that  their  church  made  the  change !  And  is  this 
all  the  historical  (?)  proof  they  can  present  on  this  point  ? 
Yes,  for  all  that  the  Sabbatarian  writers  and  scholars  for 
the  last  200  years  have  been  able  to  find  is  just  this  and 
nothing  more.  Kot  one  single  historian  in  all  the  annals 
of  the  world  has  ever  stated  that  the  pope  changed  the 
Sabbath.  For  twenty-eight  years  I  myself  quoted  these 
catechisms  as  proof  positive  on  that  subject. 

Goaded  by  my  call  for  proof  on  this  point,  the  Adventists 
selected  Elder  Waggoner  to  answer  it,  to  find  some  author 
who  says  that  the  pope  changed  the  Sabbath.  The  elder 
made  a  desperate  attempt,  covering  forty -nine  closely 
printed  pages.  He  searched  the  libraries  of  America  and 
Europe.  What  did  he  find  ?  If  he  had  a  passage  to  the  point, 
he  could  have  quoted  it  in  a  few  lines.  But  he  had  none. 
Not  a  single  author  did  he  quote  saying  that  the  pope 
changed  the  Sabbath.  So  it  rests  merely  on  the  claim  of  just 
these  Catholic  Catechisms.  Then  if  we  admit  on  their  mere 
assertion  the  boastful  claim  of  the  Catholics  that  they 
changed  the  Sabbath,  why  not  also  admit  their  claim  that 
the  pope  is  infallible,  that  he  has  the  keys  of  St.  Peter,  the 
chair  of  the  apostle,  the  only  true  apostolic  succession,  etc.  ? 
Seventh-Day  people  quickly  repudiate  all  these  other  claims 
of  the  Catholics,  but  eagerly  admit  their  claim  that  they 
changed  the  Sabbath,  simply  because  this  suits  their  theory, 
for  which  they  can  find  no  other  proof.  They  denounce 
Catholic  writers  as  forgers,  cheats,  deceivers  and  liars,  then, 
when  it  suits  their  purpose,  turn  around  and  quote  their 
mere  assertions  as  unquestionable  truth  ! 

Moreover,  even  the  claims  of  the  Catechism  are  misrepre- 
sented. The  theory  is  that  some  hundreds  of  years  after 
Christ  the  pope,  by  his  own  authority,  changed  the  Sabbath, 
and  the  Catechisms  are  explained  to  teach  this  idea.  But 
not  one  of  them  make  such  a  claim  or  anything  like  it. 


DID   THE   POPE   C^^^3GJi    THE  SABBATH?  213 

Every  one  of  these  Catholic  quotations  states  distinctly  that 
the  change  in  the  Sabbath  was  made,  not  by  the  pope,  but 
**by  the  church"  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  not 
several  hundred  years  afterward.     Thus: 

"Question.  What  are  the  days  which  the  church  com- 
mands to  be  kept  holy  ? 

"Answer.  1.  The  Sunday,  or  our  Lord's  day,  which  we 
observe  by  apostolic  tradition,  instead  of  the  Sabbath." 
Catholic  Christian  Instructed,  page  209. 

From  the  same  work,  we  take  the  following: 

"Question.  What  warrant  have  you  forkeeping  the  Sunday, 
preferable  to  the  ancient  Sabbath,  which  was  the  Saturday? " 

"Answer.  We  have  for  it  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
church,  and  apostolic  tradition." 

Catholics  claim  that  their  "church"  originated  in  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  and  any  change  made  by  the  apostolic 
church  was  made  by  the  Catholic  church.  Hence  they  claim 
that  the  "Catholic  church"  changed  the  Sabbath  in  the  days 
of  the  apostles.  Adventists  in  using  these  quotations  from 
the  Catechisms  explain  them  as  saying  that  the  change  was 
made  by  the  apostate  popes  hundreds  of  years  after  the 
apostles.  But  the  Catechisms  claim  no  such  thing,  as  is  seen 
in  the  above  quotations.  Thus  even  the  Catechisms,  when 
fairly  read,  teach  that  Sunday  observance  originated  with 
the  Christian  church  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  just  th© 
truth  exactly. 

That  Adventists  do  misrepresent  the  teachings  of  the 
Catholics  is  shown  by  the  following: 

TESTIMONY   OF  A   CATHOLIC   PRIEST. 

"  Having  lived  for  years  among  the  Seventh-Day  Advent- 
ists, I  am  familiar  with  their  claims  that  the  Pope  of  Rome 
changed  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  , 
week.     Such  assertions  are  wholly  unfounded.     Catholics 


214  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  EENOUNCED. 

claim  no  such  thing;  but  maintain  that  the  apostles  them- 
selves established  the  observance  of  Sunday  and  that  we 
received  it  by  tradition  from  them.  The  councils  and  popes 
afterwards  simply  confirmed  the  keeping  of  the  day  as 
received  from  the  apostles.  John  Meiler, 

Rector  of  St.  John's  Church,  Healdsburg,  Cal." 

The  *'  Catholic, Dictionary,"  by  Addis  and  Arnold,  aftei 
quoting  Rev.  1:10;  Acts  20:7;  1  Cor.  16:1,  2  says:  These 
texts  "seem  to  indicate  that  Sunday  was  already  a  sacred 
day  on  which  deeds  of  love  were  specially  suitable.  Heb. 
10:25  shows  this  much:  that  the  Christians,  when  the  epistle 
was  written,  had  regular  days  of  assembly.  The  scriptural 
references  given  above  show  that  the  observance  of  Sunday 
had  begun  in  the  apostolic  age;  but  even  were  Scripture 
silent  tradition  would  put  this  point  beyond  all  doubt. " 

John  Ankatell,  A.  M.,  priest  of  the  diocese  of  New  York, 
writing  in  the  Outlook,  July,  1889,  says  of  Sunday,  the 
Lord's  Day:  "  We  thinlt  it  was  given  by  our  Lord  to  the 
apostles  during  the  great  forty  days  after  his  resurrection, 
but  we  cannot  prove  this. "  He  states  the  Catholic  doctrine 
exactly,  viz:  That  the  change  was  made  by  Christ  and  the 
apostles,  but  that  the  scriptures  are  not  plain  enough  on  this 
point  to  prove  it;  hence  we  have  to  rely  upon  Catholic 
authority  which  says  it  was  made  in  New  Testament  times. 
All  Catholics  and  all  their  catechisms  say  the  same.  But  this 
is  entirely  different  from  saying  that  the  pope  made  the 
change  several  hundred  years  after  Christ.  This  is  a  sample 
of  how  Adventists  pervert  the  testimony  they  use/ 

We  will  now  present  historical  evidence,  proving  that  the 
observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  day  of  worship 
was  universal  among  Christians  in  the  days  immediately  fol- 
lowing the  apostles.  If  Sunday  worship  originated  here, 
then  it  did  not  originate  with  the  papacy,  which  came  up 
several  hundred  years  later. 

*  See  Appendix  E. 


did  the  pope  change  the  sabbath?  215 

pliny's  lettek,  a.  d.  107. 

Pliny  was  governor  of  Bithynia,  Asia  Minor,  A.  D.  106- 
108.  He  wrote  A.  D.  107  to  Trajan,  the  emperor,  concern- 
ing the  Christians,  thus:  *'  They  were  wont  to  meet  together, 
on  a  stated  day  before  it  was  light,  and  sing  among  them- 
selves alternately  a  hymn  to  Christ  as  God.  ^  -^  -5^  When 
these  things  were  performed,  it  was  their  custom  to  separate 
and  then  to  come  together  again  to  a  meal  which  they  ate  in 
common  without  any  disorder."  Hornets  Introduction, Vol. 
I,  chapter  3,  section  2,  page  84.  That  this  was  Sunday  is 
evident.  1.  They  came  together  to  worship  Christ.  2. 
They  assembled  to  eat  a  meal  together,  the  Lord's  supper. 
We  have  already  proved  that  the  "stated  day"  for  this  was 
Sunday.  "Upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  when  the  dis- 
ciples came  together  to  break  bread."  *  Acts  20:7.  This  is 
exactly  parallel  to  Pliny. 

Eusebius,  the  historian,  A.  D.  324,  says:  "I  think  that 
he  [the  Psalmist]  describes  the  morning  assemblies  in  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  assemble  throughout  the  world." 
"By  this  is  prophetically  signified  the  service  which  is  per- 
formed very  early  and  every  morning  of  the  resurrection 
day  throughout  the  whole  world."  Sabbath  Manual,  page 
125.  This  is  exactly  what  Pliny  says:  They  met  together 
"  on  a  stated  day  before  it  was  light;"  they  assembled  to 
eat  together  a  meal.  Eusebius  sa^^s  it  was  the  custom  of  all 
Christians  "  to  meet  very  early  and  every  morning  of  the 
resurrection  day."  This  ought  to  settle  it  and  does.  Pliny's 
stated  day  was  Sunday.  This  was  in  the  very  region  where 
the  apostles  labored,  and  only  eleven  years  after  St.  John 
died.  Elder  Andrews,  Sabbatarian,  saj^s:  *' This  testimony 
of  Pliny  was  written  a  few  years  subsequent  to  the  time  of 
the  apostles.  It  relates  to  a  church  which  probably  had 
been  founded  by  the  apostle  Peter."  Hist.  Sab.,  page  237. 
It  shows  that  the  apostles  taught  Sunday  keeping. 


216  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

BARNABAS,    A.    D.    120. 

This  epistle  was  highly  prized  in  the  earUest  churches, 
read  in  some  of  them  as  part  of  scripture,  and  is  found  in 
the  oldest  manuscript  of  the  scriptures,  namely  the  Sinaitic. 
That  it  was  written  by  a  pious  man  of  learning  and  influence 
cannot  be  doubted.  Elder  Andrews,  Seventh-Day  Advent- 
ist,  admits  that  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  *'was  in  existence  as 
early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and,  like  the 
*  Apostolical  Constitutions,'  is  of  value  to  us  in  that  it  gives 
some  clue  to  the  opinions  which  prevailed  in  the  region 
where  the  writer  lived."    Testimon}^  of  the  Fathers,  page  21. 

The  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  says:  *'  The  epistle  was 
probaly  written  in  Alexandria  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  and  by  a  Gentile  Christian."  The  Encyclopedia 
Brittanica,  the  highest  critical  authority,  says:  ''This  work 
is  unanimously  ascribed  to  Barnabas,  the  companion  of  St. 
Paul,  by  early  Christian  writers.  *  *  *  But  the  great 
majority  of  critics  assign  it  to  the  reign  of  Hadrian  sometime 
between  119  and  126  A.  D."  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible  says:  "The  epistle  is  believed  to  have  been  writter 
early  in  the  second  century."  Johnson's  New  Universal 
Cyclopedia  says:  It  "is  supposed  by  Hefele  to  have  been 
written  between  107-120  A.  D.  *  *  *  It  is  frequently 
cited  by  the  Fathers,  and  was  by  many  regarded  as  being  of 
authority  in  the  church;  some  even  claiming  for  it  a  place  in 
the  sacred  canon." 

This  is  a  summary  of  the  best  modern  criticism  as  to  the 
date,  character  and  authority  of  the  epistle  of  Barnabas. 
Read  and  reverenced  in  the  church  as  next  to  the  gospels 
themselves  as  early  as  A.  D.  120,  or  within  twenty-four 
years  of  the  death  of  St.  John,  it  shows  what  Christians 
believed  and  practiced  immediately  after  the  apostles.  In 
this  epistle  we  read:  "Incense  is  a  vain  abomination  unto 
me,  and  your  new  moons  and  Sabbaths  I  cannot  endure. 


DID  THE   POPE   CHANGE   THE   SABBATH?  217 

He  has,  therefore,  abolished  these  things."  Chapter  11. 
Elder  Andrews  admits  that  ' '  he  presently  asserts  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord."  ''  Testimony,"  etc.,  page 
22.  Coming  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  Barnabas  says: 
''Wherefore,  also,  we  keep  the  eighth  day  with  joy  fulness, 
the  day,  also,  on  which  Jesus  rose  again  from  the  dead." 
Chapter  15. 

What  does  Elder  Andrews  say  to  this  testimony  ?  He 
admits  that  it  teaches  the  abolition  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
and  the  keeping  of  Sunday.  But  he  argues  that  such  a  doc- 
trine is  contrary  to  the  Bible;  that  is,  to  his  ideas  of  the 
Bible,  While  I  was  yet  a  firm  believer  in  the  seventh  day, 
when  reading  this  book,  I  was  struck  with  the  fact  that  Elder 
Andrews,  all  through  his  book,  had  to  oppose  and  combat 
the  teachings  of  all  these  early  fathers  !  The  reason  is  mani- 
fest: he  held  one  doctrine  and  they  held  another.  He  believed 
in  the  seventh  day,  and  they  believed  in  the  first  day.  Some 
of  them  lived  early  enough  to  have  conversed  with  the  apos- 
tles themselves,  while  he  lived  eighteen  hundred  years  later ! 
Which  would  be  apt  to  know  the  best  ? 

In  his  "History  of  the  Sabbath,"  page  308,  he  says: 
"  The  reasons  ofiered  by  the  early  fathers  for  neglecting  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  show  conclusively  that  they  had 
no  special  light  on  the  subject  by  reason  of  living  in  the  first 
centuries,  which  we  in  this  latter  age  do  not  possess."  What 
a  confession  that  is  from  the  ablest  historian  the  seventh  day 
ever  had!  He  admits  that  "the  early  fathers"  "in  the 
first  centuries"  nedected  "the  observance  of  the  Sabbath." 
What  further  need  have  we  for  witness  to  prove  that  the 
seventh  day  was  not  observed  in  the  first  centuries  ?  But 
how  does  this  harmonize  with  the  theory  that  the  Sabbath 
was  changed  to  Sunday  by  the  pope  several  hundred  years 
afterwards?  Suppose  those  early  fathers  were  not  good 
theologians,  nor  able  reasoners;  could  they  not  testify  to  a 


218  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

simple  fact  f  Could  they  not  state  whether  they  did  or  did 
not  keep  Saturday  ?  Surely  they  knew  enough  for  that, 
and  this  is  all  we  wish  to  ask. 

We  do  not  quote  these  fathers  to  prove  a  doctrine;  for 
that  we  go  only  to  the  Bible.  We  quote  them  to  prove  a 
simple,  historical  yac?^,  viz :  that  the  early  Christians  did  keep 
Sunday,  hence  it  could  not  have  started  with  the  popes 
centuries  later. 

THE   TEACHING    OF  THE   APOSTLES,    A.    D.    125. 

This  was  not  written  by  the  apostles;  yet  its  date  is  very 
early.  Some  place  it  as  early  as  A.  D.  80.  Pro- 
fessor Harnack,  of  Berlin,  says  many  place  it  between 
A.  D.  90,  and  A.  D.  120.  This  is  the  date  most 
favored.  It  can  not  be  much  later.  The  New  York  Inde- 
pendent says  of  it:  "By  all  odds  the  most  important  writ- 
ing exterior  to  New  Testament."  Professor  D.  K.  Dungan, 
President  of  Drake  University,  says:  "It  is  evident  that  it 
is  not  far  on  this  side  of  the  death  of  the  apostle  John."  The 
noted  scholar.  Rev.  Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  in  his  Sabbath  for  Man, 
page  383,  says:  It  was  "written,  as  the  best  scholars  almost 
unanimously  agree,  not  later  than  forty  years  after  the  death 
of  the  last  of  the  apostles,  and  during  the  lifetime  of  many 
who  had  heard  John's  teaching."  In  the  preface  to  this  im- 
portant document,  the  editors.  Profs.  Hitchcock  and  Brown  in 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  N.  Y.,  say:  "The  genuine- 
ness of  the  document  can  hardly  be  doubted."  "The  docu- 
ment belongs  undoubtedly  to  the  second  century;  possibly  as 
far  back  as  120  A.  D. ;  hardly  later  than  160."    Introduction. 

Chapter  fourteen  of  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles  says: 
"But  every  Lord's  day  do  ye  gather  yourselves  together, 
and  break  bread,  and  give  thanksgiving,"  etc.  This  testi- 
mony is  clear  and  decisive  that  the  Lord's  day  was  the 
established  day  of  worship,  at  that  early  day. 


DID  THE   POPE   CHANGE   THE   SABBATH?  219 

JUSTIN  MAKTYR,    A.    D.    140. 

I  quote  from  "The  Complete  Testimony  of  the  Fathers," 
by  Elder  Andrews:  "Justin's  'Apology'  was  written  at 
Rome  about  the  year  140,"  "and  this  at  a  distance  of  only 
forty-four  years  from  the  date  of  John's  vision  upon  Patmos." 
"It  does  not  appear  that  Justin,  and  those  at  Rome  who 
held  with  him  in  doctrine,  paid  the  slightest  regard  to  the 
ancient  Sabbath.  He  speaks  of  it  as  abolished,  and  treats  it 
with  contempt."    Page  33. 

This  is  the  confession  which  even  the  historian  of  the 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  is  compelled  to  make.  The  Jewish 
Sabbath  was  wholly  disregarded  by  Christians  within  forty- 
four  years  of  the  death  of  the  last  apostle.  And  this  is 
proven  by  the  testimony  of  a  man  who  lived  right  there. 

Hear  Elder  A.  again:  "We  must,  therefore,  pronounce 
Justin  a  man  who  held  to  the  abrogation  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments, and  that  the  Sabbath  was  a  Jewish  institution 
which  was  unknown  before  Moses,  and  of  no  authority  since 
Christ.  He  held  Sunday  to  be  the  most  suitable  day  for 
public  worship. "  Page  44.  This  is  the  doctrine  that  the 
early  church  and  fathers  held.  Justin  in  his  "Apology"  for 
them  to  the  emperor  fairly  represented  what  Christians  gen- 
erally held  then,  just  as  he  should  have  done.  Elder  An- 
drews conveys  the  impression  that  Justin  represented  only 
a  small  party  of  apostate  Christians  at  Rome  and  that  he  is 
quite  unreliable.  But  the  facts  are  just  the  reverse.  He 
was  a  Greek,  born  in  Palestine  and  held  his  '  'Dialosfue  with 
Trypho,"  at  Ephesus,  Asia  Minor,  in  the  church  where  St. 
John  lived  and  died,  the  very  center  of  the  Eastern  church, 
and  only  forty-four  years  after  John's  death.  Of  Justin  the 
the  Encyclopedia  Americana  says:  "One  of  the  earliest  and 
most  learned  writers  of  the  Christian  church.  *  *  * 
He  was  also  equally  zealous  in  opposing  alleged  heri- 
tics."  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia  says:     "In  these  works 


220  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Justin  professes  to  present  the  system  of  doctrine  held 
by  all  Christians  and  seeks  to  be  orthodox  on  all  points.. 
The  only  dijQference  he  knows  of  as  existing  between  Chris- 
tians concerned  the  millennium.  Thus  Justin  is  an  incon- 
trovertible witness  for  the  unity  of  the  faith  in  the  church  of 
his  day,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  Gentile  type  of  Christianity 
prevailed. " 

'^Eusebius  says  that  he  overshadowed  all  the  great  men 
who  illummated  the  second  century  by  the  splendor  of  his 
name."  His  writings  are  "the  most  important  that  have 
come  to  us  from  the  second  century."  McClintock  and 
Strong's  Encyclopedia,  Article  Justin  Martyr. 

Dr.  Schaff  says  of  him :  '  'After  his  conversion  Justin  de- 
voted himself  wholly  to  the  vindication  of  the  Christian 
religion,  as  an  itinerant  evangelist,  with  no  fixed  abode." 
Church  History,  Yol.  1,  page  482.  Not  only  were  his  books 
accepted  without  dispute  as  expressing  the  practice  of  the 
church,  but  his  itinerant  life,  now  in  Palestine,  then  in  Rome, 
Greece  and  Ephesus,  enabled  him  to  know  this  practice,  and 
stamps  his  testimony  with  a  force  equal  to  demonstration. 
So,  then,  Justin  is  an  unimpeachable  witness  for  the  faith 
and  practice  of  Christians  generally  a  few  years  after  the 
death  of  the  apostles. 

Now  hear  what  Justin  says  about  the  first  day  of  the 
week:  "And  on  the  day  called  Sunday,  all  who  live  in 
cities  or  in  the  country  gather  together  to  one  place,  and  the 
memoirs  of  the  apostles  or  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are 
read,  as  long  as  time  permits;  then,  when  the  reader  has 
ceased,  the  president  verbally  instructs  and  exhorts  to  the 
imitation  of  these  good  things.  Then  we  all  rise  together 
and  pray,  and,  as  we  before  said,  when  our  prayer  is  ended, 
bread  and  wine  and  water  are  brought,  and  the  president  in 
like  manner  offers  prayers  and  thanksgivings,  according  to 
his  ability,  and  the  people  assent,  saying,  Amen;  and  there 


Pm  THE   POPE   CHANGE   THE   SABBATH?  221 

is  a  distribution  to  each,  and  a  participation  of  that  over 
which  thanks  have  been  given,  and  to  those  who  are  absent 
a  portion  is  sent  by  the  deacons.  And  they  who  are  well  to 
do,  and  willing,  give  what  each  thinks  fit;  and  what  is  col- 
lected is  deposited  with  the  president,  who  succors  the 
orphans  and  widows,  and  those  who,  through  sickness  or 
any  other  cause,  are  in  want,  and  those  who  are  in  bonds, 
and  the  strangers  sojourning  among  us,  and,  in  a  word,  takes 
care  of  all  who  are  in  need.  But  Sunday  is  the  day  on 
which  we  all  hold  our  common  assembly,  because  it  is  the 
first  day  on  which  God,  having  wrought  a  change  in  the  dark- 
ness and  matter,  made  the  world;  and  Jesui  Christ,  our 
Saviour,  on  the  same  day  rose  from  the  dead.  For  he  was 
crucified  on  the  day  before  that  of  Saturn  (Saturday);  and  on 
the  day  after  that  of  Saturn,  which  is  the  day  of  the  sun, 
having  appeared  to  his  apostles  and  disciples,  he  taught  them 
these  things,  which  we  have  submitted  to  you  also  for 
your  consideration."  The  First  Apology  of  Justin^  Chap- 
ter 67. 

Does  Elder  Andrews  question  the  genuineness  of  this 
document  ?  No,  indeed.  What  answer  does  he  make  to  it  ? 
Simply  that  Justin  does  not  call  Sunday  the  Sabbath  nor  the 
Lord's  day!  This  is  readily  answered  by  the  fact  that 
Justin  was  writing  to  a  heathen  emperor  who  would  have 
been  wholly  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  either  of  those  terms, 
but  who  was  familiar  with  the  tenii  "Sunday."  So  Justin 
of  necessity  used  that  term.  But  there  the  naked  facts  stand, 
clear,  positive  and  undeniable,  that  within  forty-four  years 
after  the  book  of  Revelation  was  written  Christians  did  not 
keep  the  seventh  day,  but  did  hold  their  assemblies  on  Sun- 
day. And  Justin  says  that  Jesus  taught  these  things  to  the 
apostles.  With  these  undeniable  facts  before  him,  it  is  a 
marvel  how  any  man  can  say  that  the  Sabbath  was  changed 
to  Sunday  three  or  four  hundred  years  after  this  by  the 


222  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

apostate  popes.  For  myself  I  became  fully  satisfied  that 
such  statements  are  contrary  to  all  the  plainest  facts  of 
history,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  above  unquestioned  state- 
ment of  Justin  Martyr. 

It  is  impossible  that  Sunday-keeping  could  have  thus  been 
universally  introduced  into  all  churches  without  a  word  of 
objection,  unless  it  had  started  at  the  fountain-head,  with  the 
apostles  themselves.  Consider  well  the  force  of  this  fact: 
From  the  very  earliest  days,  reaching  almost  back  to  the 
apostles  themselves,  the  church  was  divided  into  opposing 
sects,  and  controversy  between  them  was  often  very  strong. 
Yet  all  agreed  in  keeping  Sunday.  So  to-day:  go  to  any 
part  of  the  globe  and  wherever  you  find  Christians  of  any 
sect  or  nation,  there  you  find  them  keeping  Sunday.  A  few 
Sabbatarians  of  late  origin  are  the  only  exceptions  to  this. 
How  did  this  universal  custom  come  about  if  not  started  at 
the  very  foundation  of  the  church  by  the  apostles  themselves? 

DIONYSIUS,    BISHOP  OF  COEINTH  IN   GREECE,  A.  D.    170. 

But  we  will  hear  further  from  these  fathers  themselves  as 
to  whether  they  kept  Sunday.  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Cor- 
inth, the  church  which  Paul  raised  up  and  to  which  he  gave 
the  command  about  Sunday  collections,  1  Cor.  16: 1-S,  says: 
"We  passed  this  holy  Lord's  day,  in  which  we  read  your 
letter,  from  the  constant  reading  of  which  we  shall  be  able 
to  draw  admonition."  Eusebius,  Eccl.  History,  Book  4, 
Chapter  XXIII.  That  the  Lord's  day  is  the  resurrection 
day  we  have  seen.  This  term  is  never  applied  to  any  other 
than  the  first  day.  Notice  that  this  witness  is  from  Greece,  not 
Rome.    So  the  resurrection  day  was  a  "holy"  day,  A.  D.  170. 

BARDESANES  OF  EDESSA,  SYRIA,  A.  D.    180. 

Coming  down  only  ten  years  later  we  have  the  testimony 
of  the  heretic  Bardesanes,  the  Syrain,  who  flourished  about 


Dm  THE   POPE   CHANGE   THE   SABBATH?  223 

A.  D.  180.  He  belonged  to  the  Gnostic  sect.  He  says: 
*'0n  one  day,  the  first  day  of  the  week,  we  assembled  our- 
selves together,  and  on  the  days  of  the  readings  we  abstain 
from  [taking]  sustenance."  Book  of  the  Laws  of  Countries. 
Says  Elder  A. :  "This  shows  that  the  Gnostics  used  Sunday 
as  the  day  for  religious  assemblies."  Testimony,  etc.,  page 
53.  Here  is  another  good  testimony  for  Sunday,  and  another 
good  confession  from  Elder  A.  All  parties,  orthodox  and 
heretic,  kept  Sunday  as  early  as  A.  D.  180.  How,  then,  is  it 
that  Constantine  and  the  pope  changed  the  Sabbath  to  Sun- 
day two  to  four  hundred  years  later  ?  Elder  A's  own  words 
utterly  refute  such  an  idea. 

Notice  here  also  a  refutation  of  the  idea  so  strongly  urged 
by  Sabbatarians,  that  Sunday-keeping  originated  at  Rome, 
and  was  for  a  long  time  confined  there.  Elder  Andrews  has 
to  admit  that  the  Gnostics  at  this  date  used  Sunday  as  a  day 
of  worship.  But,  1.  The  Gnostics  were  emphatically  an 
eastern  sect,  originating  in  Syria,  and  w^re  most  numerous 
in  Alexandria,  Asia  Minor,  and  the  East-  Rome  never  had 
any  influence  over  them.  Bardesanes  himself  lived  at 
Edessa,  in  Mesopotamia,  1,500  miles  east  of  Rome,  on 
another  continent,  under  another  nation.  2.  This  sect  was 
numerous  in  the  East  as  early  as  A.  D.  150,  or  55  years 
after  the  death  of  John.  So  we  have  Sunday-keeping  not 
only  at  Rome  but  all  over  the  east  as  early  as  A.  D.  150, 
hundreds  of  years  before  the  pope  had  a  particle  of  influence 
there. 

CLEMENT   OF  ALEXANDRIA,    EGYPT,    A.     D.    194. 

Clement  was  one  of  the  most  celebrated  of  the  Christian 
fathers.  He  wrote  about  A.  D.  194.  He  says:  "He,  in 
fulfillment  of  the  precept,  keeps  the  Lord's  day  when  he 
abandons  an  evil  disposition,  and  assumes  that  of  the  Gnos- 
tic, glorifying  the  Lord's  resurrection  in  himself."    Book  T, 


224  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  RENOUNCED. 

Chapter  XII.  The  Lord's  day,  it  will  be  seen  here  and  all 
along,  is  the  resurrection  day.  Clement  lived,  not  at  Rome, 
but  in  Egypt.  So  Sunday-keeping  was  not  simply  a  Roman 
usage  as  Adventists  claim. 

TERTULLIAN   OF   AFRICA,    A.    D.    200. 

Tertullian  was  one  of  the  most  noted  of  the  early  fathers. 
Was  born  A.  D.  160.  He  was  highly  educated,  bred  to  the 
law,  and  very  talented.  Brought  up  a  pagan,  he  was  con- 
verted to  Christ  and  vehemently  opposed  heathenism  ever 
after.  Radically  severe  in  his  principles,  opposed  to  all 
conformity  to  the  world,  the  laxity  of  the  Roman  church 
drove  him  to  withdraw  from  it,  which  he  ever  after  hotly 
opposed.  So  he  was  not  a  Romanist,  nor  did  Rome  have 
a  particle  of  influence  over  him  only  to  drive  him  the  other 
way.  He  was  strictly  orthodox  in  faith  and  a  lover  of 
the  scriptures.  Hence  if  it  were  true  that  Sunday  keeping, 
as  a  heathen  institution,  was  being  introduced  into  the 
church  by  Rome,  Tertullian  is  just  the  man  who  would  have 
opposed  and  fearlessly  condemned  it. 

Johnson's  Cyclopedia  says  of  him:  ^'One  of  the  greatest 
men  of  the  early  church."  He  "joined  the  Puritanic  sect  of 
the  Montanists.  They  were  orthodox  in  doctrine,  but 
stern  in  spirit  and  discipline."  ''  He  remained  true  to  the 
faith  of  the  Catholics,  but  fought  them  vehemently  on  mat 
ters  of  morality  and  discipline.  He  was  also  a  representative 
of  the  African  opposition  to  Rome."  The  Schafi-Herzog 
Cyclopedia  says  of  him:  ''  One  of  the  grandest  and  most 
original  characters  of  the  ancient  church."  "Greek  phi- 
losophy he  despised."  Of  his  great  book  they  say:  "One 
of  the  magnificent  monuments  of  the  ancient  church." 
Authon's  Classical  Dictionary  says  of  him:  "He  informs 
us  more  correctly  than  any  other  writer  respecting  the 
Christian  doctrines  of  his  time.       *      *      *      Tertullian 


DID  THE   POPE   CHANGE   THE   SABBATH?  225 

was  held  in  very  high  esteem  by  the  subsequent  fathers  of 
the  church."  Neander  says:  ^'Tertullian  is  a  writer  of 
peculiar  importance. "    Rose's  Neander,  page  424. 

Here  then  is  a  competent  and  unimpeachable  witness  to 
the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  universal  church,  A.  D. 
200,  or  only  104  years  after  John.  Time  and  again  he 
argues  that  the  Sabbath  was  abolished,  that  Christians  do 
not  keep  it,  but  do  keep  Sunday,  the  Lord's  Day.  Of  the 
abolition  of  the  Sabbath  he  says:  "Let  him  who  contends 
that  the  Sabbath  is  still  to  be  observed  *  *  *  teach  us 
that  for  the  past  time  righteous  men  kept  the  Sabbath." 
' '  God  originated  Adam  uncircumsised  and  inobservant  of 
the  Sabbath."  So  he  says  Abel,  Noah,  Enoch,  etc.,  were 
"  inobservant  of  the  Sabbath."  Answer  to  the  Jews,  chap- 
ter 2.  Again:  "The  old  law  is  demonstrated  as  having 
been  consummated  at  its  specific  times,  so  also  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Sabbath  is  demonstrated  to  have  been  tem- 
porary." Chapter  4.  "  We  solemnize  the  day  after  Satur- 
day in  contradistinction  to  those  who  call  this  day  their  Sab- 
bath, and  devote  it  to  ease  and  eating,  deviating  from  the 
old  Jewish  customs,  which  they  are  now  very  ignorant  of." 
Tertullian's  Apology,  chapter  16.  Tertullian  again  declares 
that  his  brethren  did  not  observe  the  days  held  sacred  by 
the  Jews:  "We  neither  accord  with  the  Jews  in  their 
peculiarities  in  regard  to  food,  nor  in  their  sacred  days." 
"We,  however  (just  as  we  have  received),  only  on  the  day 
of  the  Lord's  resurrection  ought  to  guard  not  only  against 
kneeling,  but  every  posture  and  office  of  solicitude;  deferring 
even  our  business,  lest  we  give  any  place  to  the  devil.  "Ter- 
tuUian  on  Prayer,  chapter  23.  Sunday,  then,  was  observed 
by  Christians  at  that  early  date,  but  Saturday  was  not. 

ORIGEN,   A.   D.   225. 
Origen  (about  A.  D.  225)  was  a  man  of  immense  learning, 
and  his  writings  are  numerous.     ''  Origen  may  well  be  pro 


226  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  KENOUNOED. 

nounced  one  of  the  ablest  and  worthiest  of  the  church 
fathers."  McClintock  and  Strong's  Cyclopedia.  He  says: 
''  If  it  be  objected  to  us  on  this  subject  that  we  ourselves  are 
accustomed  to  observe  certain  days,  as,  for  example,  the 
Lord's  Day,  the  preparation,  the  passover,  or  pentecost." 
Origen  against  Celsus,  book  8,  chapter  22.  This  plainly 
shows  that  he  did  observe  the  Lord's  Day.  Origen's  home 
was  in  Egypt,  but  he  traveled  all  over  the  East  and  died  at 
Tyre.  Notice  that  witnesses  for  Sunday  came  from  all  parts 
of  the  world,  not  one  from  Kome. 

THE   APOSTOLICAL   CONSTITUTIONS,    A.    D.    250. 

Of  the  * 'Apostolical  Constitutions"  (A.  D.  250)  Elder 
Andrews  says:  ''The  so-called  'Apostolical  Constitutions' 
were  not  the  work  of  the  apostles,  but  they  werein  existence 
as  early  as  the  third  century,  and  were  then  very  generally 
believed  to  express  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles.  They  do 
therefore  furnish  important  historical  testimony  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  church  at  that  time.  Mosheira,  in  his  '  Histori- 
cal Commentaries,'  Cent.  1,  section  51,  spi'iaks  thus  of  these 
'  constitutions':  ' The  matter  of  this  work i<^  unquestionably 
ancient;  since  the  manners  and  discipline  of  ^vhich  it  exhibits 
a  view  are  those  which  prevailed  among  the  Christians  of  the 
second  and  third  centuries,  especially  those  resident  in 
Greece  and  the  oriental  regions.'"  Testimony,  etc.,  page 
13.  Notice  again  that  this  work  was  the  product  of  the 
eastern  church  and  hence  shows  the  custom  of  the  church  in 
the  east  instead  of  that  at  Rome. 

These,  then,  will  be  good  witnesses  to  the  practice  of  the 
church  about  A.  D.  250.  In  section  7,  paragraph  59,  wo 
read:  "And  on  the  day  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  which 
is  the  Lord's  Day,  meet  more  diUgently,  sending  praise  to 
God  that  made  the  universe  by  Jesus  and  sent  him  to  us.'' 
*' Otherwise  what  apology  will  he  make  to  God  who  does 


DID  THE  POPE  CHANGE  THE  SABBATH?  227 

not  assemble  on  that  day  to  hear  the  saving  word  concern- 
ing the  resurrection."  In  book  7,  section  2,  paragraph  30, 
he  says:  *'  On  the  day  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  that 
is,  the  Lord's  Day,  assemble  yourselves  together,  without 
fail,  giving  thanks  to  God,"  etc.  Li  the  same  paragraph, 
in  speaking  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  writer  says: 
*'0n  which  account  we  solemnly  assemble  to  celebrate  the 
feast  of  the  resurrection  on  the  Lord's  Day,"  etc. 

These  testimonies  are  decisive,  and  do  show  beyond  a 
doubt  that  the  Christians  of  those  early  days  used  Sunday 
just  as  it  is  used  now  for  religious  worship.  Did  they,  then, 
have  "the  mark  of  the  beast"  at  least  250  years  before  the 
beast  had  arisen,  according  to  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists' 
theory  ?  These  unquestionable  facts  of  history,  taken  from 
their  own  published  works  and  admitted  by  them  to  be  true, 
show  the  utter  absurdity  of  their  position  that  Sunday-keep- 
ing is  the  mark  of  the  beast. 

ANATOLIUS,    A.    D.    270,  BISHOP   OF  LAODICEA,  ASIA. 

He  was  bishop  of  Laodicea,  Asia  Minor.  Not  a  Roman, 
but  a  Greek.  This  church  was  raised  up  by  Paul  himself, 
and  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with  the  apostle's  doc- 
trine. In  his  seventh  canon  Anatolius  says:  "  The  obHga- 
tion  of  the  Lord's  resurrection  binds  us  to  keep  the  paschal 
festival  on  the  Lord's  Day."  In  his  tenth  canon  he  uses  this 
language:  "  The  solemn  festival  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  can  be  celebrated  only  on  the  Lord's  Day."  In  his 
sixteenth  canon  he  says:  "  Our  regard  for  the  Lord's  resur- 
rection which  took  place  on  the  Lord's  Day  will  lead  us  to 
celebrate  it  on  the  same  principle."  See  how  all  these  early 
Christians  call  the  resurrection  day  "  the  Lord's  Day"  and 
how  they  honor  it.  How  entirely  diJSerent  from  our  Sab 
batarians  who  can  hardly  find  terms  mean  enough  by  which 
to  express  their  contempt  for  Sunday  I  Why  is  this  differ- 
ence and  what  does  it  show  ? 


228  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  KENOUNOED. 

VICTORINU8,   BISHOP  OF  PBTAU,   A.    D.    800. 

*'0n  the  former  day  [the  sixth]  we  are  accustomed  to  fast 
rigorously  that  on  the  Lord's  Day  we  may  go  forth  to  our 
bread  with  giving  of  thanks.  And  let  the  parasceve  become 
a  rigorous  fast  lest  we  should  appear  to  observe  any  Sabbath 
with  the  Jews  which  Christ  himself,  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath, 
says  by  his  prophets  that  his  soul  hateth  which  Sabbath  he  in 
his  body  abolished."  Creation  of  the  World,  section  4. 

PETER,    BISHOP  OF  ALEXANDRIA,    A.    D.    306. 

"But  the  Lord's  day  we  celebrate  as  a  day  of  joy,  because 
on  it  he  rose  again,  on  which  day  we  have  received  it  for  a 
custom  not  even  to  bow  the  knee."  Canon  15.  He  gives  the 
same  reason  1581  years  ago  for  keeping  the  Lord's  day  that 
Christians  give  now.  This  was  more  than  200  years  before  the 
pope  came  into  power.  Notice  that  these  witnesses  for  Sun- 
day are  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  from  Africa,  Asia  and 
Europe,  not  simply  from  Rome,  as  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
untruthfully  say.  These  show  that  Sunday -keeping  was  as 
widespread  as  the  Christian  Church  itself,  and  that  from  the 
earliest  days. 

EU8BBIU8,    A.    D.    324. 

Eusebius  was  born  in  Palestine,  the  very  home  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles  and  the  cradle  of  the  early  church.  He 
was  bishop  of  Cesarea  where  Paul  abode  two  years.  Acts 
23:  33;  24:  27.  He  studied  at  Antioch  where  Paul  labored 
for  years.  Acts  15:  1.  He  traveled  to  Egypt  and  over 
Asia  Minor.  He  was  one  of  the  most  noted  men  of  his  age. 
He  wrote  the  first  history  of  the  Christian  church  and  bears 
the  title  of  "Father  of  Church  History."  The  Schafi'-Herzog 
Encyclopedia  says:  "As  a  repertory  of  facts  and  documents, 
his  work  is  invaluable."  Johnson's  Cyclopedia  says:  "He 
was  very  eminent  for  learning,  as  well  as  talents. "    Home's 


DID  THE   Jr'OPE   CHANGE   THE   SABBATH?  229 

Introductions  says:  "A  man  of  extraordinary  learning, 
diligence  and  judgment,  and  singularly  studious  in  the  scrip- 
tures. *  *  ^  His  chief  work  is  his  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, in  which  he  records  the  history  of  Christianity  from 
its  commencement  to  his  own  time.  ♦  *  *  He  has  de- 
livered, not  his  own  private  opinion,  but  the  opinion  of  the 
church,  the  sum  of  what  he  had  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
primitive  Christians."   Vol.  1,  Chapter  11,  Section  2,  page  12. 

He  had  every  possible  opportunity  to  know  what  Chris- 
tians did  throughout  the  world.  Of  him  Justin  Edwards, 
D.  D.,  says:  "He  lived  in  the  third  century,  was  a  man  of 
vast  reading,  and  was  as  well  acquainted  with  the  history  of 
the  church  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  as  any  man  of  his 
day. "  At  Cesarea  was  '  'a  very  extensive  library,  to  which 
Eusebius  had  constant  access.  He  was  a  learned  and 
accurate  historian  and  had  the  aid  of  the  best  helps  for 
acquiring  information  upon  all  subjects  connected  with 
the  Christian  church."  Sabbath  Manual,  pages  124-125. 
He  lived  right  there,  knew  just  what  Christians  did,  and 
wrote  about  fifty  years  before  the  council  of  Laodicea 
where  Adventists  say  the  Sabbath  was  changed  to  Sunday. 
Hear  him:  Speaking  of  the  patriarchs  before  the  flood,  he 
says:  "They  did  not,  therefore,  regard  circumcision,  nor 
ohserve  the  Sabhath^  neither  do  we;  *  *  *  because  such 
things  as  these  do  not  belong  to  Christians."  Eccl.  Hist., 
Book  1,  Chapter  4.  This  is  decisive.  A.  D.  324,  Christians 
did  not  keep  the  Sabbath. 

True,  there  was  a  small  heretical  sect  who  kept  the  Sab- 
bath as  Judaizers  do  now.  Of  them  he  says:  They 
are  "those  who  cherish  low  and  mean  opinions  of 
Christ.  *  *  *  With  them  the  observance  of  the  law 
was  altogether  necessary  [just  like  Seventh-Day  Adventists] 
as  if  they  could  not  be  saved  only  by  faith  in  Christ  and  a 
corresponding  life.     *    *    *    They  also  observe  the  Sab- 


230  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

bath  and  other  discipline  of  the  Jews  just  like  them,  but  on 
the  other  hand  they  also  celebrate  the  Lord's  Days  very 
much  like  us  in  commemoration  of  his  resurrection."  Eccl. 
Hist,,  pages  112-113.  Even  these  Judaizers  kept  Sunday. 
On  the  Ninety-second  Psalm  he  says:  "The  word  by  the 
new  covenant  translated  and  transferred  the  feast  of  the  Sab- 
bath to  the  morning  light  and  gave  us  the  true  rest,  viz., 
the  saving  Lord's  Day."  "On  this  day  which  is  the  first  of 
light  and  of  the  true  Sun,  we  assemble,  after  an  interval 
of  six  days,  and  celebrate  holy  and  spiritual  Sabbaths,  even 
all  nations  redeemed  hy  him  throughout  the  worlds  and  do 
th(jse  things  according  to  the  spiritual  law  which  were  decreed 
for  the  priests  to  do  on  the  Sabbath."  Again:  "And  all 
things  whatsoever  that  it  was  the  duty  to  do  on  the  Sab- 
bath, these  we  have  transferred  to  the  Lord's  Day  as  more 
honorable  than  the  Jewish  Sabbath."  Quoted  in  Justin 
Edwards'  Sabbath  Manual,  pages  126-127. 

This  testimony  of  the  great  historian  of  the  early  church 
is  decisive.  It  puts  it  beyond  doubt  that  Christians  in  all 
the  world  did  then  keep  Sunday,  the  Lord's  Day,  and  did 
not  keep  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  It  is  a  desperate  cause  which 
has  to  deny  such  testimony  as  this. 

SUMMARY   OF    TESTIMONY  FROM     CYCLOPEDIAS. 

As  a  fair,  impartial  and  clear  statement  of  the  teachings 
of  the  early  Christian  fathers  concerning  the  observance  of 
Sunday,  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  following  from  Smith's 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  article  "Lord's  Day."  Here  is  a 
book  easy  of  access  to  all  anywhere,  un sectarian,  embodying 
the  results  of  the  most  thorough  and  scholarly  examination 
of  every  passage  in  all  the  fathers  having  any  bearing  upon 
the  Sunday  question.  Any  one  who  has  read  the  fathers 
must  confess  that  its  statements  are  fair  and  truthful.  I  have 
only  room  for  one  short  quotation: 


DID  THE   POPE   CHANGE   THE   SABBATH?  231 

"The  results  of  our  examination  of  the  principle  writers 
of  the  two  centuries  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  are  as  fol- 
lows: 'The  Lord's  day  existed  during  these  two  centuries  as 
a  part  and  parcel  of  apostolical,  and  so  of  Scriptural  Chris- 
tianity. It  was  never  defended;  for  it  was  never  impugned, 
or  at  least  only  impugned  as  were  other  things  received 
from  the  apostles.  It  was  never  confounded  with  the 
Sabbath,  but  carefully  distinguished  from  it.  *  -^  * 
*  *  *  It  was  not  an  institution  of  severe  Sab- 
batical character,  but  a  day  of  joy  and  cheerfulness, 
rather  encouraging  than  forbidding  relaxation.  Relig- 
iously regarded,  it  was  a  day  of  solemn  meeting  for  the 
holy  eucharist,  for  united  prayer,  for  instruction,  for  alms- 
giving; and  though  being  an  institution  under  the  law  of 
liberty,  work  does  not  appear  to  have  been  formally  inter- 
dicted, or  rest  formally  enjoined.  Tertullian  seems  to  indi- 
cate that  the  character  of  the  day  was  opposed  to  worldly 
business.  Finally,  whatever  analogy  may  be  supposed  to 
exist  between  the  Lord's  day  and  the  Sabbath,  in  no  passage 
that  has  come  down  to  us  is  the  fourth  commandment  ap- 
pealed to  as  the  ground  of  the  obligation  to  observe  the 
Lord's  day." 

So  Johnson's  New  Universal  Cyclopaedia,  Art.  Sabbath, 
says:  "For  a  time  the  Jewish  converts  observed  both  the 
seventh  day,  to  which  the  name  Sabbath  continued  to  be 
given  exclusively,  and  the  first  day,  which  came  to  be  called 
the  Lord's  day.  *  *  *  Within  a  century  after  the  death 
of  the  last  of  the  apostles  we  find  the  observance  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  under  the  name  of  the  Lord's  day,  estab- 
lished as  a  universal  custom  of  the  church.  *  ^  "^  It 
was  regarded  not  as  a  continuation  of  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath (which  was  denounced  together  Avith  circumcision  and 
other  Jewish  and  anti-Christian  practices),  but  rather  as  a 
substitute  for  it,  and  naturally  its  observance  was  based  on 


232  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  BENOUNCED. 

the  resurrection  of  Christ  rather  than  on  the  creation  rest 
day,  or  the  Sabbath  of  the  Decalogue." 

No  higher  authority  than  this  could  he  quoted.  It  states 
the  truth  exactly.  So  the  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia,  Art. 
Sunday,  says:  *'In  the  second  century  its  observance  was 
universal.  *  *  *  Xhe  Jewish  Christians  ceased  to  ob- 
serve the  Sabbath  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem." 

Dr.  Schaff,  than  whom  there  is  no  higher  living  authority, 
says:  "The  universal  and  uncontradicted  Sunday  obser- 
vance in  the  second  century  can  only  be  explained  by  the  fact 
that  it  had  its  roots  in  apostolic  practice."  History  of  the 
Christian  church,  Vol.  I,  page  478. 

The  man  who  will  shut  his  eyes  to  all  this  mass  of  testi- 
mony and  still  insist  that  Sunday-keeping  is  only  an  institu- 
tion of  popes  of  later  ages,  is  simply  held  by  a  theory  which 
he  is  bound  to  maintain  anyway.  I  have  had  a  sad  experi- 
ence in  this  matter,  and  know  just  how  a  seventh-day  man 
feels  in  reading  these  historical  facts.  I  read  some  of  them 
twenty  years  ago.  They  perplexed  me  some,  but  I  got  over 
this  by  my  strong  faith  in  our  doctrines  and  by  believing 
them  to  be  mostly  forgeries.  Afterwards  as  I  read  more,  I 
saw  these  testimonies  were  reliable  and  very  decidedly 
against  our  theory  of  the  pope's  Sunday.  This  disturbed 
me  quite  a  little,  but  still  I  got  over  them  by  simply  ceasing 
to  think  of  them  at  all,  and  by  dwelling  upon  other  argu- 
ments in  which  I  had  perfect  confidence.  In  debate  I  was 
always  anxious  to  shut  these  out  of  the  discussion.  I  know 
that  Seventh-Day  Adventist  ministers  generally  feel  as  I 
did,  for  we  often  referred  to  these  testimonies  of  the 
fathers  and  the  effect  they  had  in  debate.  Of  course,  the 
great  body  of  the  members  never  read  these  things,  and  are 
in  blissful  ignorance  concerning  them.  Or,  if  they  do  read 
them,  it  is  in  their  own  books  where  they  are  all  explained 
away.     Their  unbounded  faith  in  "the  message"  and  in  their 


DID  THE  POPE   CHANGE  THE   SABBATH*  233 

leaders  carries  them  right  over  these  facts  as  matters  of  no 
consequence. 

For  myself,  when  once  I  decided  to  look  these  historical 
facts  squarely  in  the  face  and  give  them  whatever  force  they 
fairly  deserved,  I  soon  saw  the  utter  falsity  of  the  claim  that 
the  "pope  changed  the  Sabbath."  The  old  feeling  of  un- 
easiness on  this  point  is  entirely  gone.  I  feel  that  so  far  as 
the  evidence  of  history  is  concerned,  my  feet  stand  on  solid 
ground. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

SABBATARIAN   POSITIONS  ON  THE  HISTORY  OF   SUNDAYS 

REFUTED. 

What  answer  do  Sabbatarians  make  to  all  the  preceding 
testimony  ?     This: 

1.  ''The  Bible,  the  Bible  only,  is  our  rule.  We  don't 
go  by  history."  Reply:  Why  then  do  they  themselves 
appeal  to  history  ?  No  people  depend  so  much  upon  history, 
none  refer  to  it  so  often,  none  make  so  great  claims  from  it 
as  Seventh-Day  Adventists.  Thus  Andrews'  book  on  the 
Sabbath  contains  512  pages.  Of  these  192  are  on  the  Bible 
and  320  on  history.  Yet  they  don't  go  by  history!  Where- 
ever  they  can  find  a  scrap  in  their  favor  they  make  the  most 
of  it.  Of  their  reliance  on  history  Elder  Smith  says:  ''One 
of  the  grandest  facts  we  have  to  present  is  that  God  has  al- 
ways had  witnesses  to  his  holy  Sabbath  from  the  days  of 
Adam  till  now."  Replies  to  Elder  Canright,  pages  41-42. 
Mark:  One  of  the  grandest  facts  they  have  to  present  in 
favor  of  Saturday  is  what  ?  Bible  testimony  ?  No,  but 
witness  from  history.  Yet,  they  don't  go  by  history  !  The 
fact  is  they  quote  history  whenever  they  possibly  can. 
Why,  then,  cry  out  against  history  when  we  follow  them 
there?     Because  it  is  against  them. 

2.  They  say  that  "  the  early  fathers  are  unreHable,  fools, 
apostates,  forgers  and  frauds."  Listen  to  them:  Of  one 
of  the  fathers  Elder  Smith  says:  "A  fraud,  an  impostor,  a 
forger.  •»  *  *  An  old  forger  of  the  second  century  who 
wrote  things  too  silly  to  be  repeated  and  too  shameful  to 
quote."    Replies  to  Elder  Canright,  page  39.     Hear  Elder 

(234) 


SABBATARIAN  HISTORICAL  POSITIONS  REFUTED.         235 

Waggoner:  "  Surely  insanity  could  not  produce  any  more 
driveling  nonsense  than  this. "  *'Such  childish  nonsense  is 
seldom  seen  under  the  heading  of  reason."  "  It  would  have 
been  a  blessing  to  the  world  if  they  had  all  been  lost." 
Fathers  of  the  Catholic  Church,  pages  206,  209,  217.  This 
is  the  way  they  dispose  of  all  the  Christian  fathers  who  said 
a  word  in  favor  of  Sunday.  No  doubt  it  would  have  been 
better  for  those  who  keep  the  Jewish  Sabbath  if  all  the 
Christian  fathers  had  been  lost  and,  better  still,  if  the  New 
Testament  also  had  been  lost,  for  both  these  are  against 
them.  Why  this  effort  to  break  down  the  testimony  of  these 
early  Christian  writers  ?  Because  they  are  against  them  and 
Sabbatarians  know  it.  Whatever  crude  notions  those 
fathers  might  have  had,  they  could  state  a  simple  fact  of 
their  own  days  as  to  whether  they  did,  or  did  not,  keep  Sun- 
day. They  all  agree  that  they  did  and  their  testimony  is 
decisive. 

But  how  much  is  there  to  their  charge  of  fraud,  forgery, 
etc.  ?  Just  this:  In  those  days  the  author's  name  was  not 
always  signed  to  his  book;  hence  it  sometimes  happened 
that  a  book  was  attributed  to  the  wrong  author  by  mistake. 
No  fraud  or  forgery  was  designed  or  practiced  by  any  one. 
Look  at  Hebrews.  No  name  is  signed  to  it.  It  is  still  a 
disputed  point  as  to  who  wrote  it,  Paul,  Barnabas,  or  some 
other  apostle.  Shall  we,  therefore,  call  it  a  "  fraud"  and 
throw  it  out  of  the  Bible  ?  No.  So  of  the  epistle  of  Barna- 
bas for  instance.  No  name  was  signed  to  it,  yet  it  was 
generally  attributed  to  the  apostle  Barnabas  and  was  read 
in  all  the  churches  as  authority  as  early  as  A.  D.  120.  Some 
attributed  it  to  others;  but  all  agree  that  it  was  written  as 
early  as  A.  D.  120  by  some  Christian  and  gave  the  opinion 
and  customs  of  the  church  at  that  time.  "  Fraud,  fraud," 
cry  the  Sabbatarians,  "Barnabas  never  wrote  it."  Well, 
what  of  it  ?     Some  Christian  wrote  it  within  twenty-five 


2^6  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

years  of  John's  death  and  it  says  that  Christians  then  kept 
Sunday. 

3.  "  None  of  the  fathers  call  Sunday  the  Sabbath."  So 
say  the  Sabbatarians.  That  is  about  right.  The  early 
church  said  with  Paul,  Col.  2:16,  that  the  Sabbath  was 
abolished  with  other  Jewish  rites.  The  first  day  was  not 
the  Sabbath,  but  "the  Lord's  Day,"  "the  eighth  day," 
"resurrection  day,"  etc. 

4.  Sabbatarians  say  that  Christians  worked  on  Sunday 
during  the  first  century  or  longer,  Their  evidence  for  this 
is  very  questionable  as  we  will  soon  see.  Yet  possibly  at 
first  the  day  may  not  have  been  observed  as  strictly  as  later 
on;  but  still  it  was  the  day  on  which  all  Christians  met  for 
their  worship  according  to  the  custom  of  the  apostles.  This 
is  what  we  claim  and  have  abundantly  proved. 

6.  Sabbatarians  say:  "The  Christians  kept  the  Sabbath 
for  centuries  after  Christ."  Reply:  All  history  abundantly 
shows  that  the  Jewish  Christians  observed  the  Sabbath,  cir- 
cumcision, passover,  etc. ,  for  a  long  time.  In  some  churches 
where  the  Jewish  element  predominated,  the  Gentiles  may 
have  also  kept  the  Sabbath,  but  all  parties  kept  Sunday  at 
the  same  time.  These  are  the  facts  about  Sabbath-keeping 
in  the  early  church  as  proved  above. 

6.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  quote  so-called  "eminent 
historians"  to  prove  their  assertions.  With  these  authors 
they  deceive  the  people  and  deceive  themselves.  They  quote 
them  as  "reliable  historians,"  "high  authorities,"  "emi- 
nent divines,"  "all  friends  of  Sunday,"  etc.  But  who  are 
they?  Look  at  Andrews'  History  of  the  Sabbath,  their 
standard  work.  All  others  relating  to  the  history  of  the 
Sabbath  are  only  a  re-hash  of  this.  It  is  served  up  on  all 
occasions  and  his  authors  are  quoted  over  and  over  by  writers 
and  preachers.  But  the  great  bulk  of  his  quotations  are 
from  such  men  as  Heylyn,  Domville,  Morer,  Cox,  Brere- 


SABBATARIAN  HISTORICAL  POSITIONS  REFUTED.         237 

Wood,  White,   etc.,  Episcopal  clergymen  of  England  who 
were  bitter  opposers  of  Sunday  sacredness. 

1.  Brerewood,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  was  only  a 
college  professor,  not  of  note  enough  to  be  even  named  in 
any  cyclopedia  I  have  seen,  and  1  have  consulted  many.  He 
was  a  fiery  erratic,  and  argued  that  the  Sabbath  law  was 
given  only  to  the  master.  See  The  Sabbath  by  Giltillin, 
pages  122-123. 

2.  Coleman,  an  American  writer  of  our  own  times, 
scarcely  mentioned  in  any  cyclopedia. 

3.  Dr.  Cox,  a  Scottish  anti-Sunday  writer  last  century, 
not  even  named  in  any  cyclopedia.  See  Gillfillin,  page  168. 
Yet  Andrews  quotes  him  twenty-two  times^  long  quotations, 
as  a  friend  of  Sunday  !  He  might  as  well  quote  one  of  his 
own  party.  In  proof  of  this  read  the  following  from  Dr. 
Lewis,  Seventh-Day  Baptist,  in  his  "History  of  Sabbath 
and  Sunday":  ''A  pastor  of  the  Mill  Yard  Seventh-Day 
Baptist  Church  in  London,  Robert  Cornthwaite,  published 
five  works  upon  the  Sabbath  question."  Of  the  last  book 
Lewij^  Says:  "  Robert  Cox  quotes  largely  from  this  work." 
Pages  337-339.  Exactly;  then  Andrews  calls  this  man  a 
friend  of  Sunday ! 

4.  Domville,  another  anti-Sunday  writer  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  not  in  any  cyclopedia.  He  denies  that  there 
was  any  authority  in  the  Bible  for  observing  Sunday,  even 
as  a  day  for  meetings.  Gillfillin,  page  143.  Yet  Andrews 
quotes  him  thirteen  times  as  a  standard  Sunday  authority  ! 

5.  Heylyn  was  the  friend  of  the  infamous  Laud  of 
England.  In  1618  Charles  I.  of  England  issued  a  "Book 
of  Sports"  for  Sunday,  allowing  of  dancing,  wrestling  and 
various  games  on  Sunday.  See  Gilfillin,  page  85.  Pious 
people  opposed  the  declaration  as  a  desecration  of  Sunday 
Laud,  by  the  King's  command,  hired  this  Heylyn  and  Dr. 
White  to  write  against  Sunday  sacredness,  and  in  favor  of 


238  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

the  King's  book.  In  four  months  a  large  volume  was  writ- 
ten, printed  and  delivered  according  to  order,  to  prove  what 
was  wanted  against  Sunday.  The  Cyclopedia  of  Universal 
Knoweledge  says  of  Heylyn:  '*  He  was  a  very  voluminous 
controversial  writer,  but  his  works  are  of  no  value  now." 
From  this  man  Andrews  makes  thirty-six  quotations,  many 
of  them  long,  as  his  chief  evidence  on  his  main  points  ! 

6.  White,  the  man  associated  with  Heylyn,  as  the  hire- 
ling of  Laud  in  writing  the  above  book,  is  quoted  eleven 
times  by  Andrews  as  a  reliable  defender  of  Sunday  !  He 
might  as  well  quote  Elder  Waggoner  as  a  defender  of  Sun- 
day. 

7.  Morer  is  a  writer  of  the  eighteenth  century,  mentioned 
in  no  cyclopedia.  He  wrote  to  disprove  the  divine  origin  of 
Sunday  observance.  See  GilfiUin,  page  142.  Of  one  of  his 
statements,  which  happened  to  favor  Sunday,  Elder  Wag- 
goner says:  ''  Dishonest  as  it  manifestly  is,"  etc.  Replies 
to  Elder  Canright,  page  146.  From  this  "  dishonest"  man 
Elder  Andrews  makes  no  less  than  forty-seven  quotations^ 
many  of  them  long  ! 

8.  Jeremy  Taylor,  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  friend 
and  chaplain  of  the  villainous  Laud,  wrote  against  the  divine 
authority  of  Sunday,  and  yet  is  quoted  by  Andrews  as  the 
friend  of  Sunday  ! 

These  are  samples  of  his  authors.  Most  of  them  were 
members  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  that,  too,  during 
the  worst  period  of  that  church;  a  church  which  permits  the 
widest  range  in  theological  opinions,  such  as  Unitarianism, 
Universalism,  future  probation,  annihilation,  rationalism, 
high  church,  low  church,  etc.  How  much  then  does  it  sig- 
nify as  to  the  soundness  of  one's  opinion  to  state  that  he  is 
a  minister  of  that  church  ? 

Take  from  the  historical  part  of  Andrews'  history  his 
quotations  and  arguments  from  the  above  authors  and  you 


SABBATARIAN   HISTORICAL  POSITIONS  REFUTED.         239 

would  hardly  have  a  skeleton  left.  And  even  quotations 
from  these  are  one-sided.  Waggoner,  Smith,  Butler,  and 
all  the  lesser  lights  among  Seventh-Day  Adventists  who  have 
come  after  Andrews  simply  use  these  quotations  which  he 
gathered  for  them.  But  they  might  as  well  quote  Inger- 
soll  and  Tom  Paine  as  "friends  of  the  Bible"  as  to  quote 
these  men  as  ' '  friends  of  the  Sunday  Sabbath. "  Each  of 
them  wrote  on  purpose  to  refute  the  claims  of  Sunday  as  a 
Sabbath  of  divine  authority.  Thousands  of  readers  ignorant 
of  history  are  misled,  as  I  was  once,  by  these  quotations 
used  by  the  Adventists.  If  they  had  the  truth  they  would 
not  be  compelled  to  rely  upon  such  authors. 

THE  PAGAN  ROMANS  NEVER  KEPT  SUNDAY. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  affirm  that  keeping  Sunday  was 
adopted  from  the  pagan  Romans  by  the  Catholics  and  from 
the  Catholics  by  the  Protestants.  This  idea  they  industri- 
ously teach  everywhere.  They  say  that  these  pagans  kept 
Sunday  in  worship  of  the  sun.  See  Andrews'  History  of 
the  Sabbath,  pages  258-264.  Such  statements  are  utterly 
false.  Each  day  of  the  week  was  named  after  some  god 
und,  in  a  certain  sense,  was  devoted  to  the  worship  of  that 
god,  as  Monday  to  the  moon,  Saturday  to  Saturn,  Sunday 
to  the  sun,  etc.  But  did  they  cease  work  on  these  days  ? 
No;  if  they  had  they  would  have  kept  every  day  in  the 
week.  Did  they  observe  Sunday  by  ceasing  to  work  ?  No, 
indeed.  No  such  thing  was  taught  or  practiced  by  the 
Romans.     They  had  no  weekly  rest  day. 

Prof.  A.  Rauschinbusch  of  Rochester  Theological  Seminary 
quotes  Lotz  thus:  "  '  It  is  a  vain  thing  to  attempt  to  prove 
that  the  Greeks  and  Romans  had  anything  resembling  the 
Sabbath.  Such  opinion  is  refuted  even  by  this,  that  the 
Roman  writers  ridicule  the  Sabbath  as  something  peculiar 
to  the  Jews. '    In  proof  he  cites  many  passages  from  the 


240  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Roman  poets,  and  one  from  Tacitus.  Seneca  also  con- 
demned the  Sabbath  observance  of  the  Jews  as  a  waste  of 
time  by  which  a  seventh  part  of  life  was  lost."  Satm^day  or 
Sunday?  Page  83.  Herzog  says;  ''No  special  religious 
celebration  of  any  one  day  of  the  week  can  be  pointed  out 
in  any  one  of  the  pagan  religions."  Article  Sabbath.  This 
fact  is  accidentally  confessed  by  Elder  Waggoner.  Of  Con- 
stantine's  law,  A.  D.  321,  he  says:  ''Though  the  venerable 
day  of  the  sun  had  long — very  long — been  venerated  by 
them  and  their  heathen  ancestors,  the  idea  of  rest  from 
worldly  labor  in  its  worship  was  entirely  new.^^  Replies  to 
Elder  Canright,  page  130.  Mark  this  confession  for  it  gives 
up  the  main  pillar  of  their  argument  in  their  effort  to  prove 
that  Sunday-keeping  was  taken  from  the  pagans.  The 
pagans  never  Icejpt  Sunday.  It  was  a  common  work  day 
like  other  days  of  the  week.  The  idea  and  the  custom  of 
keeping  Sunday  as  a  day  of  rest  from  work  originated  with 
the  Christians,  not  with  pagans.  So  much  for  that  false- 
hood. Again:  Saturday  was  sacred  to  Saturn  as  Sunday 
was  to  the  sun.  So  Adventists  are  keeping  a  heathen  day 
Ahe  same  as  Sunday-keepers  are  ! 

C0N8TANTINE   DID  NOT  CHANGE   THE    SABBATH. 

It  has  been  common  for  Sabbatarians  to  point  to  the  law 
of  Constant!  ne  as  a  chief  factor  in  changing  the  Sabbath  to 
Sunday.  There  never  w^as  any  truth  in  the  charge;  but 
Elder  Waggoner  now  owns  it  all  up  and  confesses  that  it 
had  nothing  whatever  to  do  in  changing  the  Sabbath.  "Con- 
stantine,  in  his  decrees,  said  not  one  word  either  for  or 
against  keeping  the  Sabbath  of  the  Bible."  "It  is  safe  to 
affirm  that  there  was  nothing  done  in  the  time  of  Constan- 
tine,  either  by  himself  or  any  other,  that  has  the  least  ap- 
pearance of  changing  the  Sabbath."  RepUes  to  Elder  Can« 
right,  page  150.     That  is  the  truth  and  a  good  confession, 


SABBATARlAir  HISTORICAL  POSITIONS  REFUTED.         241 

tihough  it  contradicts  all  that  they  have  said  heretofore.  "Novf 
let  them  revise  their  old  books  to  harmonize  with  this  truth 
and  they  will  be  much  smaller. 

OONSTANTINE'S   SUNDAY   LAW   AND   ITS   OBJECT. 

A.  D.  321,  Constantine,  the  first  Christian  emperor  of 
Rome,  issued  the  following  edict: 

''Let  all  the  judges  and  town  people,  and  the  occupation 
of  all  trades,  rest  on  the  venerable  day  of  the  sUn,  but  let 
those  who  are  situated  in  the  country,  freely  and  at  full 
Hberty,  attend  to  the  business  of  agiiculture;  because  it  often 
happens  that  no  other  day  is  so  fit  for  sowing  corn  and 
planting  vines;  lest,  the  critical  moment  being  let  slip, 
men  should  lose  the  commodities  granted  by  Heaven." 

The  simple  facts  about  this  law  are  these:  Christians  from 
the  days  of  the  apostles  had  kept  the  first  day  of  the  week; 
but  there  was  no  civil  law  to  protect  or  aid  them  in  it.  By 
this  time  they  had  become  very  numerous  in  the  empire  and 
their  influence  was  rapidly  gaining.  The  old  pagan  religion 
was  falling  before  them.  Constantine,  to  say  the  least,  was 
favorable  to  Ch  ristianity .  His  parents  were  Christians.  He 
was  shrewd  enough  to  see  that  it  was  for  his  interest  to  favor 
this  new  and  rising  religion.  Hence,  as  soon  as  he  publicly 
professed  Christianity,  he  issued  several  edicts  favoring  it 
in  various  wa3'S,  this  one  concerning  Sunday  among  the  rest. 
The  Schafi-Herzog  Encyclopedia  well  says:  ''He  was  no 
doubt  convinced  of  the  superior  claims  of  Christianity  as 
the  rising  religion;  but  his  conversion  was  a  change  of  policy, 
rather  than  of  moral  character.  *  *  *  He  knew  Chris- 
tianity well,  but  only  as  a  power  in  the  Roman  Empire  and 
he  protected  it  as  a  wise  and  far-seeing  statesman.  *  *  * 
His  first  edict  concerning  the  Christians  (Rome,  312)  is  lost. 
By  the  second  (Milan,  313)  he  granted  them,  not  only 
free  rehgious  worship  and  the  recognition  of  the  state,  but 


242  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

aiso  reparation  of  previously  incurred  losses.  *  *  *  A 
series  of  edicts  of  315,  316,  319,  321,  and  323,  completed 
the  revolution.  Christians  weve  admitted  to  the  offices  of  the 
state.  *  *  *  An  edict  of  321  ordered  Sunday  to  be 
celebrated  by  cessation  of  all  work  in  public. " 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  edict  was  only  one  of  seven  issued 
to  favor  Christians.  1.  It  was  not  made  to  please  or  favor 
the  pagans,  for,  as  seen  above,  they  did  not  keep  Sunday. 
2.  As  we  have  proved,  the  Christians  did  all  keep  Sunday, 
hence  this  law  would  favor  and  please  them.  3.  The  edict 
was  not  addressed  to  Christians  for  they  needed  no  such  law 
for  themselves  as  they  kept  that  day  voluntarily.  4.  It  was 
\not  worded  in  Christian  terms,  "Lord's  Day,"  as  it  was  ad- 
dressed to  pagans.  5  It  W' as  couched  in  pagan  terms, '  'day 
of  the  sun,"  that  pagans  might  understand  it  and  that  it 
might  offend  them  less.  This  law,  then,  made  no  change  in 
the  observance  of  Sunday  on  the  part  of  Christians;  but  it 
did  secure  to  that  day  a  better  observance  by  requiring 
everyone,  pagans  and  all,  to  cease  work  that  day.  But  it  is 
said  that  this  law  of  Constantine,  A.  D.  321,  was  the  first 
law  ever  made  prohibiting  work  on  Sunday.  Very  true,  but 
why?  Because  none  but  Christians  believed  it  wrong  to 
work  that  day;  and  up  to  that  date  Christians  had  no  power 
to  make  laws  and  hence  could  not  have  made  a  law  for 
keeping  Sunday  if  they  had  desired  to.  It  is  noticeable  that 
the  first  emperor  who  favored  Christianity  made,  among 
other  laws  favoring  Christians,  a  civil  law  prohibiting  work 
on  Sunday. 

That  this  law  was  made  at  the  request  of  Christians  is 
now  admitted  by  Adventists.  Thus  Elder  A.  T.  Jones  in 
the  Battle  Creek  Journal,  December  11,  1888,  says:  ''It  is 
demonstrated  that  the  first  Sunday  law  that  ever  was  enacted 
was  at  the  request  of  the  church;  it  was  in  behalf  of 
the  church,    and   it   was   expressly  to    help  the  church." 


SABBATARIAN  HISTORICAL  POSITIONS  REFCTTED.         243 

Exactly,  and  this  proves  that  the  church  kept  Sunday 
before  that  law  was  made.  It  is  an  absurdity  to  say 
that  the  pagans  had  always  kept  Sunday  and  yet  had 
never  made  a  law  concerning  it.  As  Adventists  all  agree, 
the  first  Sunday  law  was  made  to  favor  Christians.  This 
shows  that  Sunday  observance  was  then  regarded  as  an 
t3ssential  part  of  Christianity.  Of  this  law  Mosheim  says: 
*'The  first  day  of  the  week,  which  was  the  ordinary  and 
stated  time  for  the  public  assemblies  of  the  Christians, 
was,  in  consequence  of  a  peculiar  law  enacted  by  Constan- 
tine,  observed  with  greater  solemnity  than  it  had  foraierly 
been."  Mosheim,  century  4,  part  2,  chapter  4,  sec- 
tion 5. 

This  law,  addressed  to  pagans  who  had  alwaj^s  worked  on 
Sunday,  required  the  cessation  of  business  on  that  day  and 
so  secured  to  Christians  a  better  observance  of  Sunday  than 
before.  The  ecclesiastical  historian,  Sozomen,  writing  of 
Constantine,  says:  "He  also  enjoined  the  observance  of  the 
day  termed  the  Lord's  Day.  *  *  *  He  honored  the 
Lord's  Day  because  on  it  Christ  rose  from  the  dead." 
Eccl.  Hist. ,  page  22.  It  was,  then,  in  behalf  of  Sunday  as 
a  Christian  day,  not  as  a  pagan  festival,  that  this  law  was 
made. 

VOUND  AT  LAST  THE   EXACT    TIME    AND    PLACE    WHEN     AND 
WHERE   THE   POPE   CHANGED   THE     SABBATH ! 

I  pressed  the  Adventists  to  name  the  time  and  place  when 
and  where  the  Sabbath  was  changed  by  the  pope,  and  to 
name  the  pope  and  the  facts  about  such  a  change  if  it  ever 
occurred.  Nettled  by  this.  Elder  Waggoner  undertook  the 
Herculean  task.  A  worse  sample  of  assumption  and  perver- 
sion of  facts  it  would  be  hard  to  find.  At  last  he  settles  on 
the  council  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  364,  as  the  place  and  time 
when  and  where  the  Sabbath  was  changed.    The  29th  canon 


244r  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  KENOUNC5ED. 

of  that  council  reads  thus:  * 'Christians  ought  not  to  Juda* 
ize  and  to  rest  in  the  Sabbath,  but  to  work  in  that  day;  but 
preferring  the  Lord's  Day,  should  rest,  if  possible,  as  Chris- 
tians. Wherefore  if  they  shall  be  found  to  Judaize,  let  them 
be  accursed  from  Christ."  On  this  the  Elder  says:  "Now, 
if  any  one  can  imagine  what  would  be  changing  the  Sab- 
bath, if  this  is  not,  1  would  be  extremely  happy  to  learn 
what  it  could  be."  "Now  I  claim  that  I  have  completely 
met  his  demand;  I  have  shown  the  time,  the  place,  and  the 
power  that  changed  the  Sabbath."  Replies  to  Canright, 
pages  141,  151.  He  claims  that  this  was  "a  Catholic 
council"  and  that  "historians  early  and  late  have  made 
much  mention"  of  this  council.  Now  let  us  examine  his 
position. 

1.  If  the  Sabbath  was  changed  to  Sunday  by  the  pope 
right  here,  as  he  affirms,  then  certainly  it  was  not  changed 
before  nor  after  nor  at  any  other  place.  So  if  this  fails 
their  whole  cause  is  lost.  Let  the  reader  mark  the  im- 
portance of  this  fact. 

2.  He  admits  what  every  scholar  knows,  that  till  after  the 
time  of  Constantine  the  bishop  of  Rome  had  no  '  'authority 
whatever  above  the  other  bishops"  and  so  could  not  have 
changed  the  Sabbath  before  that  time.  He  says:  "It  was 
Constantine  himself  that  laid  the  foundation  of  the  papacy. " 
Replies  to  Elder  Canright,  page  148.  Surely  the  papacy 
did  not  exist  before  its  foundation  was  laid. 

3.  He  admits,,  as  above,  that  Constantine  did  nothing  to 
change  the  Sabbath. 

4.  But  we  have  abundantly  proved  in  precedings  pages 
that  all  Christians  long  before  this  date  were  unanimous  in 
observing  the  Lord's  Day.  This  one  simple  fact  proves  the 
utter  absurdity  of  the  claim  that  it  was  changed  at  Laodicea, 
A.  D.  364,  or  by  the  papacy  at  any  time. 

5.  In  the  year  324,  or  just  40  years  before  the  council  of 


SABBATARIAN   HISTORICAL  POSITIONS  REFUTED.         245 

Laodicea,  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Cesarea,  Palestine,  wrote  his 
celebrated  history  of  Christianity.  He  had  every  possible  op- 
portunity to  know  what  Christians  did  throughout  the  world. 
He  says:  "And  all  things  whatsoever  that  it  was  the  duty 
to  do  on  the  Sabbath,  these  Ave  have  transferred  to  the 
Lord's  Day  as  more  honorable  than  the  Jewish  Sabbath." 
Quoted  in  Sabbath  Manual,  page  127. 

That  is  the  way  the  Sabbath  and  Sunday  stood  in  the 
church  40  years  before  Laodicea.  They  did  not  keep  the 
Sabbath,  but  did  keep  the  Lord's  Day,  had  transferred  all 
things  to  it.  How  much  truth,  then,  can  there  be  in  the 
position  that  the  Sabbath  was  changed  to  Sunday  by  the 
pope  40  years  later  ?  Shame  on  such  brazen  attempts  to 
pervert  the  truth.  But  let  us  look  at  the  real  facts  about  the 
council  at  Laodicea.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  claim  two 
things,  viz:  that  the  Sabbath  was  changed  by  the  Roman 
church,  and  that  it  was  done  by  the  authority  of  the  pope. 
Then  they  select  Laodicea  as  the  place  and  time.     But, 

1.  Laodicea  is  not  Rome.  It  is  situated  in  Asia  Minor 
over  1,000  miles  east  of  Rome.  It  was  in  Asia  not  in 
Europe.  It  was  an  Eastern,  not  a  Western  town,  an  oriental, 
not  a  Latin  city. 

2.  It  was  a  Greek,  not  a  Roman  city. 

3.  The  pope  of  Rome  did  not  attend  this  council  at  Lao- 
dicea, A.  D.  364.  Does  Waggoner  claim  that  he  did  ?  No, 
he  does  not  dare  to. 

4.  The  pope  did  not  attend,  nor  did  he  send  a  legate  or 
a  delegate  or  any  one  to  represent  him.  In  fact,  neither  the 
Roman  Catholic  church  nor  the  pope  had  anything  to  do 
with  the  council  in  any  way,  shape  or  manner.  It  was  held 
without  even  their  knowledge  or  consent. 

5.  At  this  early  date,  A.  D.  364,  the  popes,  or  rather 
bishops  of  Rome,  had  no  authority  over  other  bishops.  It 
was  200  years  later  before  they  were  invested  with  author- 


246  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

ity  over  "Western  churches.  Even  then  their  authority  was 
stoutly  resisted  for  centuries  in  the  East  where  this  council 
was  held.  See  Bower's  History  of  the  Popes,  or  any  church 
history.  Speaking  of  Sylvester,  who  was  bishop  of  Rome 
A.  D.  314  to  336,  only  28  years  before  this  council  at  Lao- 
dicea,  Elder  Waggoner  says:  "The  bishop  of  Rome  had 
not  then  yet  attained  to  any  authority  whatever  above  the 
other  bishops."  Replies  to  Canright,  page  143.  This  is 
true.  Did  they  in  the  next  twenty-eight  years  gain  author- 
ity to  change  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  from  one  day  to 
another  throughout  the  whole  world?     Preposterous! 

6.  Liberius  ^^as  bishop  of  Rome  at  the  time  of  this  coun- 
cil at  Laodicea.  He  was  degraded  from  his  office,  banished, 
and  treated  with  the  utmost  contempt.  Bowers  says  that  in 
order  to  end  his  exile,  Liberius  '  'wrote  in  a  most  submis- 
sive and  cringing  style  to  the  eastern  bishops. "  History  of 
the  Popes,  Vol.  I,  page  64.  And  this  was  the  pope  who 
changed  the  Sabbath  at  a  council  of  these  same  eastern 
bishops,  1,000  miles  away,  which  he  never  attended  ! 

7.  The  council  of  Laodicea  was  only  a  local  council,  a 
small,  unimportant  affair  and  not  a  general  council  at  all. 
Elder  Waggoner  magnifies  it  into  a  great  "Catholic  [general] 
council,"  a  claim  which  is  utterly  false.  The  general  coun- 
cils are:  1.  That  at  Nice,  A.  D.  325.  2.  That  at  Constan^ 
tinople,  A.  D.  381.  3.  That  at  Ephesus,  A.  D.  431,  etc.  See 
the  list  in  Johnson's  Cyclopedia,  or  any  history.  Bower  in 
his  extensive  work,  the  "History  of  the  Popes,"  gives  an 
account  of  all  the  general  councils,  the  important  local  coun- 
cils, and  all  with  which  Rome  or  the  popes  had  to  do,  but 
does  not  even  mention  this  one  at  Laodicea.  He  mentions 
many  councils  held  about  that  time,  but  not  this  one.  He 
says:  "Several  other  councils  were  held  from  the  year  363 
to  368,  of  which  we  have  no  particular  account."  Vol.  I, 
page  79.     I  have  searched  through  a  number  of  cyclopedias 


SABBATARIAN  HISTORICAL  POSITIONS  REFUTED.         247 

and  church  histories  and  can  find  no  mention  at  all  of  the 
council  at  Laodicea,  in  most  of  them,  and  only  a  few  lines  in 
any.  Rev.  W.  Armstrong,  a  scholar  of  Canton,  Pa.,  ssljs: 
"This  council  is  not  even  mentioned  by  Mosheim,  Milner, 
Ruter,  Reeves,  Socrates,  Sozomen,  nor  by  four  other  histor- 
ians on  my  table."  McClintock  and  Strong's  Cyclopedia 
says:  ''Thirty-two  bishops  were  present  from  different 
provinces  in  Asia."  All  bishops  of  the  Eastern  church,  not 
one  from  the  Roman  church!  And  yet  this  was  the  time  and 
place  when  and  where  the  Roman  church  and  the  pope 
changed  the  Sabbath ! 

8.  Now  think  of  it:  this  little  local  council  of  thirty-two 
bishops  revolutionizes  the  whole  world  on  the  keeping  of 
the  Sabbath ! 

9.  The  fact  is  that  this  council  simply  regulated  in  this 
locality  an  already  long  established  institution,  the  Lord's 
Day,  just  the  same  as  council  after  council  did  afterwards. 
If  this  changed  the  Sabbath  to  Sunday,  then  it  has  been 
changed  a  hundred  times  since  !  Sabbatarians  point  to  these 
different  regulations  as  so  many  acts  in  changing  the  Sab- 
bath, when  they  have  not  the  remotest  relation  to  such  a 
thing  any  more  than  have  the  resolutions  with  regard  to 
keeping  Sunday  which  are  passed  year  by  year  now  in  all 
our  religious  assemblies.  Elder  Waggoner  makes  this  truth- 
ful statement:  "The  decrees  of  councils  have  not  as  a  gen- 
eral thing  been  arbitrary  laws  telling  what  7nust  he,  so  much 
so  they  have  been  the  formulation  of  the  opinions  and  prac 
tices  largely  prevalent  at  the  time.  *  *  *  Infallibility 
had  been  attributed  to  the  pope  hundreds  of  years  before  it 
became  a  dogma  of  the  church."  Fathers  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  page  333,  Exactly,  and  just  so  the  Lord's  Day 
had  been  kept  by  the  church  hundreds  of  years  before  the 
council  of  Laodicea  mentioned  it. 

10.  The  church  of  Laodicea  where  this  council  was  held 


248  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

was  raised  up  by  Paul  himself,  Col.  4:13,  16;  1  Tim.  6; 
close  of  the  epistle.  It  was  one  of  the  seven  churches  to 
which  John  wrote.  Rev.  3:14.  Hence  it  is  certain  it  was 
well  instructed  and  grounded  in  the  doctrines  of  the  apostles. 
Between  Paul  and  this  council,  that  is  A.  D.  2Y0,  Anatolius 
was  bishop  of  Loadicea.  Rewrote:  "  Our  regard  for  the 
Lord's  resurrection,  which  took  place  on  the  Lord's  Day, 
will  lead  us  to  celebrate  it  on  the  same  principle."  Canon 
16.  Here  we  have  that  church  keeping  Sunday  one  hundred 
years  before  this  council. 

11.  Finally,  if  the  council  of  Laodicea  changed  the  Sab- 
bath, as  Adventists  say,  then  it  was  changed  by  the  Greek 
church  instead  of  the  Roman  church;  changed  by  the  east- 
ern churches  over  which  Rome  had  no  authority;  changed 
before  the  papacy  was  established,  before  the  pope  had  any 
authority  over  the  east,  by  a  small  local  council  which  neither 
the  pope  nor  any  of  his  servants  attended.  The  absurdity 
of  this  claim  is  manifest  without  further  argument. 

For  many  years  I  accepted  these  false  statements  of  Sab- 
batarian writers  as  undoubted  truths,  as  all  their  converts 
do.  I  had  no  means  of  knowing  better.  I  preached  strongly 
what  I  read  in  their  books  and  led  hundreds  still  more 
ignorant  than  myself  to  believe  it.  Gradually  the  truth 
dawned  upon  me  that  I  was  being  misled,  but  it  then  took 
me  years  to  learn  the  real  facts  in  the  case  and  free  myself 
from  the  superstition  which  bound  me.  Now  I  have  investi- 
gated the  matter  till  I  J^m  fully  satisfied  for  myself  that,  to 
sustain  their  false  theories,  they  have  done  great  violence  to 
the  plainest  facts  of  history.  The  assertion  that  the  pope 
changed  the  Sabbath  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  rest. 


CHAPTER  Xin. 

THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  OLD  TE8TAMEHT. 
THE   SABBATH   IN   GENESIS. 

The  Sabbath  is  not  mentioned  by  name  in  the  book  of 
Genesis,  nor  till  the  time  of  Moses.  Gen.  2:1-3  states  that 
God  finished  creation  in  six  days  and  rested  on  the  seventh 
day;  and  that  he  blessed  and  sanctified  the  seventh  day 
''  because  that  in  it  he  had  rested."  On  this  we  remark:  1. 
The  day  was  not  holy  in  itself.  2.  God's  rest  upon  that 
day  did  not  make  it  holy.  3.  God  sanctified  or  made  holy 
the  seventh  day  because  that  in  it  he  had  rested.  His  rest 
was  over  and  passed  before  he  blessed  the  day.  4.  As  to 
just  when  God  blessed  the  day  the  record  does  not  clearly 
state.  Some  contend  that  he  sanctified  the  day  then  and 
there  in  Eden.  Others  argue  that  this  was  not  done  till  th« 
exodus.  Plausible  arguments  are  used  on  both  sides;  but 
the  simple  fact  that  the  most  godly  and  learned  men  have 
always  disagreed  about  the  institutition  of  the  Sabbath  in 
Eden  should  teach  us  caution  how  we  build  a  theory  upon  a 
disputed  text  so  meager  in  statement  and  so  far  away  in  time. 
In  all  fairness  it  must  be  owned  that  the  definite  time  when 
the  Sabbath  was  sanctified  can  not  certainly  be  determined 
from  this  text. 

Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  truthfully  says:  "It  is 
in  Ex.  16:23-29  that  we  find  the  first  incontrovertible  insti- 
tution of  the  day."  Art.  Sabbath.  Of  the  argument  on 
Gen.  2:1-3  for  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  in  Eden  it  says: 
"The  whole  argument  is  very  precarious."    There  is  no 

(249) 


250  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

command  in  Gen.  2  to  keep  the  Sabbath.  We  must  look 
elsewhere  for  that.  The  sanctification  of  the  seventh  day 
there  mentioned  is  claimed  by  some  to  have  been  by  antici- 
pation. As  Moses  wrote  his  books  after  he  came  to  Sinai, 
after  the  Sabbath  had  been  given  in  the  wilderness,  he  here 
mentions  one  reason  why  God  thus  gave  them  the  seventh 
day,  viz:  because  God  himself  had  set  the  example  at  crea- 
tion; had  worked  six  days  and  rested  the  seventh.  Such 
use  of  language  is  common.  We  say  Gen.  Grant  was  born 
at  such  a  time.  We  do  not  mean  that  he  was  a  general  then, 
but  we  mention  it  by  anticipation,  using  a  title  which  he 
afterwards  bore.  So  in  Gen.  3:20,  ''Adam  called  his  wife's 
name  Eve,  because  she  was  the  mother  of  all  livino^."  Here 
is  a  future  fact  stated  as  though  it  had  already  occurred.  So 
1  Sam,  4:1,  the  Jews  "pitched  beside  Eben-ezer. "  But  the 
place  was  not  named  Eben-ezer  till  years  after.  1  Sam. 
7:12.  "Judas  Iscariot,  which  also  was  the  traitor."  Luke 
6:16.  Here  a  future  fact  with  regard  to  Judas  is  mentioned 
when  he  is  first  spoken  of,  though  the  act  of  betrayal  did 
not  take  place  till  years  later.  Just  so  when  the  seventh 
day  is  first  mentioned  its  sanctification  is  referred  to,  though 
it  did  not  occur  till  afterwards.  We  must  admit  that  this 
may  have  been  so. 

Ex.  20:8  says:  "  Remember  the  Sabbath  day,"  etc. 
Sabbatarians  claim  that  this  shows  that  the  Sabbath  existed 
from  creation.  It  does  not  prove  it,  because  the  Sabbath 
had  been  given  some  weeks  before  the  decalogue  was  given. 
So  this  may  refer  back  only  to  Ex.  16,  when  the  Sabbath  is 
first  named.  Or,  which  is  evidently  the  real  truth  about  it, 
it  may  refer  to  keeping  the  Sabbath  as  it  comes  week  by 
week.  "Remember,"  don't  forget,  to  keep  the  Sabbath 
day. 

Then  it  is  now  generally  held  by  able  Christian  scholars 
that  the  days  of  creation  were  indefinite  periods  of  time. 


THE   SABBATH  IN  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT.  251 

There  is  mucli  to  sustain  this  idea.  Sabbatarians  themselves 
admit  this.  Thus  Eev.  A.  H.  Lewis,  D.  D  ,  Seventh-Day 
Baptist,  editor  and  author  of  several  critical  works  on  the 
Sabbath,  says:  "  We  apprehend  that  the  creation  week  was 
infinitely  longer  than  our  week  of  seven  days  of  twenty-four 
hours."  Sabbath  and  Sunday,  page  8.  But  this  fact  is 
fatal  to  his  definite  seventh-day  theory;  for  if  God's  days 
were  not  twenty-four  hour  days  like  ours,  then  we  do  not 
and  can  not  rest  on  the  same  definite  day  He  did.  Hence 
we  can  only  use  God's  week  as  a  model — six  days  work,  the 
seventh  rest. 

Sabbatarians  think  that  the  fourth  commandment  desig- 
nates the  identical  day  on  which  God  himself  rested.  But 
this  is  not  as  clear  as  they  claim.  "  The  seventh  day  is  the 
Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God."  Ex.  20:10.  That  is,  the 
rest  day  of  the  Lord;  hence  it  must  be  the  day  on  which  he 
himself  rested,  they  say.  But  this  does  not  necessarily  fol- 
low. The  language  simply  claims  that  day  as  belonging  to 
God.  Take  the  day  of  the  passover:  "  The  fourteenth  day 
of  the  first  month  is  the  passover  of  the  Lord."  Num.  28:16. 
Did  the  Lord  keep  the  passover  that  day  ?  Hardly.  Again: 
"These  are  the  feasts  of  the  Lord."  Lev.  23:4.  Did  the 
Lord  feast  on  those  days?  Surely  not.  The  language 
simply  claims  those  days  as  sacred  to  God  and  that  is  all 
that  Ex.  20:10  claims  for  the  seventh  day.  The  revised 
version  gives  the  idea  clearly:  "  The  seventh  day  is  a  Sab- 
bath unto  the  Lord  thy  God." 

Away  back  there  in  the  dim  past,  where  the  events  of  an 
age  are  covered  by  one  line  in  the  Bible,  it  is  impossible  now 
to  determine  exactly  how  it  all  was.  Those  ages  before 
Christ  are  compared  to  shadows.  Col.  2:17,  and  to  the  light 
of  the  moon,  Rev.  12:1,  while  the  gospel  is  compared  to  the 
sun.  Rev.  12:1.  Is  it  not  the  safest  for  us  to  walk  in  the 
light  of  the  sun  instead  of  groping  our  way  in  the  moonlight 


262  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

and  shadows  of  the  past  ?  But  the  main  reliance  of  Sabbar- 
tarians  is  upon  arguments  drawn  from  those  remote  times 
of  darkness,  while  in  the  New  Testament  they  find  little  to 
support  their  theories,  but  much  to  explain  away. 

There  is  no  statement  that  any  of  the  patriarchs  kept  the 
Sabbath  or  knew  anything  about  it.  Sabbatarians  say  the 
record  is  so  brief  that  it  was  omitted.  Their  proof  then  is 
what  was  left  out! 

Though  the  record  from  Adam  to  Moses  covers  a  period  of 
2500  years;  though  we  appear  to  have  a  full  account  of  the 
religious  customs  and  worship  of  the  patriarchs,  such  as 
Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Joseph,  etc. ;  though  we  are 
told  about  circumcision,  the  altar,  the  sacrifices,  the  priests, 
the  tithe,  the  oath,  marriage,  feast  days,  etc. ;  yet  never  a 
word  is  said  about  any  one  keeping  the  Sabbath.  This  does 
not  prove  positively  that  they  did  not  keep  it,  but  it  does 
show  a  strong  probability  against  it.  This  is  the  sum  of 
what  can  be  fairly  said  about  the  Sabbath  in  Genesis. 
When  men  go  away  back  in  Genesis  to  find  their  principal 
argument  for  the  Sabbath,  is  it  not  going  a  long  ways  and 
finding  little  upon  which  to  establish  a  Christian  duty? 
Would  it  not  be  wiser  and  safer  to  build  our  faith  upon  the 
plain  requirements  of  the  New  Testament  ? 

TESTIMONY  OF  EMINENT  MEN. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  only  44  years  after  the  death 
of  St.  John,  and  who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  apostles,  denied  that  the  Sabbath  originated  at  crea- 
tion. Thus  after  naming  Adam,  Abel,  Enoch,  Lot  and 
Melchizedek,  he  says:  "Moreover,  all  those  righteous  men 
already  mentioned,  though  they  kept  no  Sabbaths,  were 
pleasing  to  God."    Dialogue  with  Trypho,  chapter  19. 

Irenaeus  says:  ''  Abraham  believed  God  without  circuui' 
cision  and  the  Sabbath."  Adv.  Hceres,  lib.  4,  c.  30. 


THE   SABBATH  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  253 

Tertullian,  A.  D.  200,  said:  *'Let  them  show  me  that 
Adam  Sabbatized,  or  that  Abel  in  presenting  his  holy  offer- 
ing to  God  pleased  him  by  Sabbath  obsei-vance,  or  that 
Enoch  who  was  translated  was  an  observer  of  the  Sabbath." 
Against  the  Jews,  section  4. 

Eusebius,  A.  D.  324,  the  father  of  church  history,  says: 
*'They  (the  patriarchs)  did  not,  therefore,  regard  circum- 
cision, nor  observe  the  Sabbath,  nor  do  we."  Eccl.  Hist., 
book  1,  chapter  4. 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  the  early  church  did  not 
believe  that  the  Sabbath  originated  at  creation.  The  same 
doctrine  has  been  maintained  by  such  eminent  men  as  Paley, 
Hessey,  Bishop  Bramhall,  etc.  Paley  says:  "Now,  in  my 
opinion,  the  transactions  in  the  wilderness  above  recited 
were  the  first  actual  institution  of  the  Sabbath."  Quoted 
in  Watson's  Institutes,  Vol.  II,  page  515.  The  great  John 
Milton  says:  "Whether  its  institution  was  ever  made 
known  to  Adam,  or  whether  any  commandment  relative  to 
its  observance  was  given  previous  to  the  delivery  of  the  law 
on  Mt.  Sinai,  much  less  whether  any  such  was  given  before 
the  fall  of  man,  can  not  be  ascertained."  A  Treatise  on 
Christian  Doctrine,  Vol.  I,  page  299. 

John  Bunyan  says:  "  Now  as  to  the  imposing  of  the 
seventh  day  Sabbath  upon  men  from  Adam  to  Moses,  of 
that  we  find  nothing  in  holy  writ,  either  from  precept  or 
example."  Complete  Works,  page  892.  So  many  of  the 
best  minds  have  not  been  able  to  find  clear  proof  that  the 
Sabbath  was  kept  before  Moses.  Others,  as  Clarke,  Barnes, 
Scott,  Lange,  etc. ,  think  that  it  was.  We  best  leave  it  as 
an  unsettled  question. 

Granting  that  the  Sabbath  was  given  to  Adam  in  Eden, 
it  does  not  follow  that  all  men  now  must  keep  it.  Look  at 
what  Adam  was  to  do:  1st.  Adam  was  only  allowed  to  eat 
the  fruit  of  trees  and  plants.    Gen.  1:  29.    The  first  permis- 


254:       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

sion  to  eat  flesh  was  given  to  Noah.  Gen.  9:  3.  2d.  Adam 
was  to  tend  garden.  Gen.  2:  15.  3d.  He  was  forbidden 
the  tree  of  knowledge.  Gen.  2:  17.  4th.  He  was  given 
access  to  the  tree  of  life.  Gen.  2:  16.  5th.  Adam  was 
naked.  Gen.  2:  25.  All  this  was  in  Eden  before  the  fall. 
Must  all  men  now  eat  and  work  and  dress  and  do  just  as 
Adam  did  in  Eden  ?  No  one  believes  that.  Then  it  would 
not  follow  that  we  must  keep  the  seventh  day  even  if  Adam 
did.  This  simple  fact  demolishes  the  most  confident  argu- 
ment of  Sabbatarians. 

THE   SABBATH  AT  THE   EXODUS. 

The  first  mention  of  Sabbath  observance  is  in  Ex.  16. 
Many  eminent  scholars  hold  that  God  here  changed  the  day 
of  rest  from  the  original  seventh  to  the  sixth  day  of  the  crea- 
tion week.  Others  bold  that  the  Jews,  during  their  long 
slavery  in  Egypt,  had  lost  the  Sabbath  and  that  it  was  here 
renewed;  while  others  hold  that  it  was  here  given  for  the  first 
time.  Whichever  position  is  correct,  it  is  clear  that  the 
keeping  of  the  Sabbath  was  a  new  thing  to  the  Jews.  A  few 
facts  are  plain.  The  deliverance  of  Israel  from  Egypt  marked 
a  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  church  and  of  Israel.  This 
is  kept  prominent  all  through  the  Bible.  Here  God  gave 
them  a  new  year  and  a  new  beginning  of  months.  "This 
month  shall  be  unto  you  the  beginning  of  months;  it  shall 
be  the  first  month  of  the  year  to  you."  Ex.  12:  2.  Hence 
it  is  very  probable  that  he  might  have  given  them  a  new 
Sabbath  day  or  one  for  the  first  time.  The  account  of  their 
first  keeping  the  Sabbath  shows  plainly  that  they  were  not 
accustomed  to  it  before. 

Dr.  H.  C.  Benson,  the  eminent  M.  E.  editor,  scholar  and 
author,  says  of  Ex.  16:  "It  is  so  explicit  that  we  are  not 
left  in  doubt  as  to  the  fact  that  the  Sabbath,  as  observed  in 
the  wilderness  of  sin,  had  not  been  a  day  hollowed  by  the 


THE  SABBATH  IN  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT.  265 

Lord  previous  to  that  time."  Quoted  and  approved  by  Dr. 
Potts  and  Bishop  Harris  in  The  Lord's  Day  Our  Sabbath, 
page  15. 

John  Milton  over  200  years  ago  said:  ''That  the  Israelites 
had  not  so  much  as  heard  of  the  Sabbath  before  this  time, 
seems  to  be  confirmed  by  several  passages  of  the  prophets.'' 
Treatise  on  Christian  Doctrine,  Vol.  I,  book  2,  chapter  7. 

John  Bunyan  also  said:     "The   seventh   day   Sabbath, 
therefore,  was  not  from  paradise,  nor  from  nature,  nor  from 
the  fathers,  but  from  the  wilderness  and  from  Sinai."   Com 
plete  Works,  page  895. 

It  was  new  to  them.  Read  it:  Moses  said  on  Friday, 
'  'To-morrow  is  a  solemn  rest,  a  holy  Sabbath  unto  the  Lord. " 
(R.  V.)  The  last  verse  gives  the  conclusion  of  the  whole 
matter.  "So  the  people  rested  on  the  seventh  day."  That 
is,  thus  and  for  this  reason  the  people  here  began  resting  on 
the  seventh  day.  There  is  no  sense  in  the  language  if  this  is 
not  the  meaning.  Several  scriptures  harmonize  well  with  this 
idea.  Thus,  Neh.  9:  13-14.  "Thou  camest  down  also  upon 
Mount  Sinai,  -5^  *  *  and  madest  known  unto  them  thy 
holy  Sabbath."  This  implies  that  it  was  not  known  before. 
In  harmony  with  this,  Ezek.  20: 10-12  says:  "Wherefore  I 
caused  them  to  go  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and 
brought  them  into  the  wilderness."  "Moreover  also  I  gave 
them  my  Sabbaths,  to  be  a  sign  between  me  and  them." 
When  did  God  give  them  the  Sabbath  ?  When  he  brought 
them  out  of  Egypt.  Where  did  he  give  it  to  them  ?  In  the 
wilderness.    What  for?  For  a  sign  between  himself  and  them. 

It  does  not  say  that  God  restored  the  Sabbath,  but  that 
he  gave  them  the  Sabbath.  "I  gave  them  my  Sabbaths" 
implies  the  act  of  committing  it  to  them,  showing  that  they 
did  not  have  it  before.  Surely  all  these  facts  are  plainly 
stated.  They  show  that  the  keeping  of  this  day  was  a  new 
thing  to  them  and  only  for  them.     Deut.  5:  15,  states  that 


256  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

the  Sabbath  is  to  be  kept  as  a  memorial  of  Egypt.  * 'Re- 
member that  thou  wast  a  servant  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and 
that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence;  *  *  * 
therefore,  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep  the 
Sabbath  day."  This  indicates  that  the  Sabbath  was  a  Jew- 
ish institution.  One  reason  given  why  they  should  keep  it 
was  because  they  had  been  delivered  out  of  Egypt.  Of 
course  they  would  not  keep  it  till  the  reason  existed  for  keep- 
ing it.  The  laws  regulating  how  it  should  be  kept  show 
that  it  was  a  local  institution  adapted  only  to  the  Jewish 
worship  and  to  that  warm  climate.  1.  No  fires  must  be 
built  on  the  Sabbath.  Ex.  35:  3.  2.  They  must  neither 
bake  nor  boil  that  day.  Ex.  16:  23.  3.  They  must  not 
go  out  of  the  house.  Ex.  16:  29.  4.  Their  priests  must 
offer  two  lambs  that  day.  Num.  28:  9.  5.  They  must  com- 
pel  all  among  them,  living  in  their  land,  to  keep  it.  Ex.  20: 
10.     6.  They  must  stone  all  who  broke  it.     Ex.   31:  14. 

7.  It  must  be  kept  from  sunset  to  sunset.     Lev.   23:  32. 

8.  Their  cattle  must  rest.  Ex.  20:  10.  No  meetings  were 
appointed  for  that  day.     It  was  to  be  wholly  a  day  of  rest. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  observe  none  of  these  things.  In- 
deed, it  would  be  impossible  for  them  to  do  most  of  them. 
They  would  freeze  without  fires  and  suffer  without  warm 
food.  They  go  many  miles  on  the  Sabbath  and  drive  their 
teams;  they  offer  no  lambs;  they  can  compel  no  one 
to  keep  it;  nor  do  they  stone  those  who  break  it. 
In  the  extreme  north  and  in  traveling  around  the 
earth  they  do  not  go  by  sunset  time,  for  they  cannot.  Their 
Sabbath-keeping  is  no  more  like  that  of  the  Old  Testament, 
such  as  the  law  required,  than  darkness  is  like  light.  It 
shows  the  folly  of  their  effort  to  keep  an  obsolete  Jewish 
day.  Nowhere  are  Gentiles  required  to  keep  the  Sabbath 
except  such  as  dwell  among  the  Jews.  They  were  also  re- 
quired to  keep  the  other  feast  days.     Lev.  16:  29.    All 


THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  267 

throngh  the  Old  Testament  the  Gentiles  are  denounced  over 
and  over  for  all  other  sins,  but  not  once  for  breaking  the 
Sabbath,  though  none  of  them  kept  it.  The  reason  for  this 
must  be  that  it  was  not  binding  upon  them.  John  Bunyan 
says:  ''We  read  not  that  God  gave  it  to  any  but  to  the 
seed  of  Jacob."     Complete  Works,  page  895. 

*'THE   JEWISH   sabbath"   A  PROPEK  TERM  FOR  THE  SEVENTH 

DAY. 

Sabbatarians  strongly  object  to  our  calling  the  seventh-day 
the  '^Jewish  Sabbath."  They  ask,  "Where  does  the  Bible 
call  it  the  Jewish  Sabbath  ?  It  is  'the  sabbath  of  the  Lord 
thy  God. ' "  This  simple  argument  has  great  force  with  many. 
But  I  am  satisfied  it  is  perfectly  proper  to  designate  the 
seventh  day  as  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Seventh-day  brethren 
are  constantly  talking  and  writing  about  "the  ceremonial 
law"  and  "the  moral  law,"  nor  could  they  properly  express 
their  ideas  of  the  "two  laws"  without  using  these  terms. 
But  neither  of  them  is  once  used  in  all  the  Bible.  How  is 
this  ?  Will  they  admit  that  their  idea  is  unscriptural  be- 
cause these  exact  words  are  not  used  in  the  Bible  ?  No. 
They  freely  use  the  terms  "Jewish  festivals,"  "Jewish  sab- 
baths," "annual  sabbaths,"  "sabbaths  of  the  Hebrews," 
etc.  See  "History  of  the  Sabbath,"  pages  82,  83,  84,  etc. 
Yet  not  one  of  these  terms  is  found  in  the  Bible,  though 
they  cannot  get  along  without  them.  It  would  be  amusing 
to  confine  a  Sabbatarian  strictly  to  the  Bible  language  and 
then  hear  him  attempt  to  preach  on  the  two  laws  and  the 
difierent  sabbaths.  "Those  who  live  in  glass  houses  should 
not  throw  stones." 

1.  "Sabbath"  is  purely  a  Hebrew  word  never  found  till 
the  time  of  Moses.  Ex.  16:  23. 

2.  The  word  Sabbath  is  never  used  in  the  Bible  except  in 
connection  with  some  Jewish  holy  time. 


238       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

3.  There  is  no  record  that  the  Sabbath  was  ever  kept  eill 
the  Jews  kept  it.     Ex.  10, 

4.  The  Sabbath  was  given  to  the  Jews.  ''I  gave  them 
my  Sabbaths."  Ez.  20:  12.  If  God  gave  it  to  the  Jews, 
was  it  not  their  Sabbath;  was  it  not  the  Jewish  Sabbath? 
I  give  Fred  a  knife.     Is  it  not  Fred's  knife  ? 

5.  Notice  how  plain  the  record  is  that  God  gave  tne  Sab- 
bath to  the  Jews,  but  to  no  others.  "The  Lord  hath  given 
you  the  Sabbath."  Ex.  16:  29.  "Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel^  saying.  Verily,  my  Sabbaths  ye  shall  keep." 
Ex.  31:  13.  Who  was  told  to  keep  the  Sabbath?  The 
children  of  Israel,  the  Jews.  '  'It  is  a  sign  between  me  and 
the  child/ren  of  Israel ^^''  the  Jews.  Verse  17. 

6.  God  himself  calls  the  Sabbath  "her  Sabbaths."  Hosea 
2:  11.  "I  will  also  cause  all  her  mirth  to  cease,  her  feast 
days,  her  new  moons,  and  her  Sabbaths,  and  all  her  solemn 
feasts."    Isn't  it  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  then  ? 

7.  The  Sabbath  was  never  given  to  any  other  nation. 

8.  "The  children  of  Israel  shall  keep  the  Sabbath 
throughout  their  generation."  Ex.  31:16.  To  whom  was 
it  confined  %  To  the  generation  of  the  Jews. 

9.  "It  is  a  sign  between  me  and  the  children  of  Israel.'^^ 
Ex.  31:  17.     It  was  theirs  exclusively,  Jewish. 

10.  The  Sabbath  is  classed  right  in  with  the  other  Jew- 
ish holy  days  and  sacrifices.  See  Lev.  23:  1-44:;  Nums:  28: 
2,  16;  1  Chron.  23:  29-31;  2  Chro.  2:  4;  8:  13,  etc. 

11.  It  was  abolished  with  them.     Col.  2:  14-17. 

12.  The  Jews  comprise  nearly  all  those  who  keep  the 
seventh  day;  hence  "Jewish  Sabbath"  is  a  natural  and  intel- 
ligent designation  for  that  day. 

13.  Christians  almost  unanimously  keep  the  first  day  in 
distinction  from  the  Jews  who  comprise  nearly  all  those  who 
keep  the  seventh  day.  Hence  the  Jewish  Sabbath  is  intellir 
gent  and  proper  again. 


THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  259 

14.  The  few  Christians  who  keep  a  different  day  from  the 
great  body  of  the  church  keep  the  Sabbath  which  the  Jews 
keep.  Hence,  again,  it  is  significant  and  proper  to  desig- 
nate them  as  those  who  keep  the  Jev.ish  Sabbath. 

15.  But  Sabbatarians  say  that  the  seventh  day  is  called 
''the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God."  Ex.  20:  10,  and  ''my 
holy  day,"  Isa.  58:  10,  therefore  it  is  not  proper  to  call  it 
"the  Jewish  Sabbath." 

Answer:  Every  holy  season,  place,  person,  or  article  was 
called  the  Lord's  as  "the  Lord's  passover."  Ex.  12:  11. 
Yet  we  read,  "The  passover,  a  feast  of  the  Jews."  John  6: 
4  So  it  is  "the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord"  in  one  place  and 
"her  Sabbaths"  in  another.  Hosea  2:  11.  Hence  it  is  cor- 
rect and  scriptural  to  call  the  seventh  day  "the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath." 

EX.    31:  16-17,    THE  SABBATH  PERPETUAL. 

Here  Sabbatarians  find  three  expressions  from  which  they 
irgue  that  the  Sabbath  can  never  end.  1.  "Throughout 
their  generations."  2.  "Perpetual."  3.  "Forever."  Thus: 
"Wherefore  the  children  of  Israel  shall  keep  the  Sabbath,  to 
observe  the  Sabbath  throughout  their  generations,  for  a  per- 
petual covenant.  It  is  a  sign  between  me  and  the  children 
of  Israel  for  ever."  They  ask,  when  y^\^ perjpetual  and/br 
ever  end  ?  They  show  that  the  generation  of  the  Jews  still 
continues;  hence  the  Sabbath  is  still  to  be  kept. 

But  this  argument  would  also  perpetuate  all  the  Levitical 
law,  circumcision,  incense,  passover,  priesthood,  etc.  Thus 
the  passover:  "ye  shall  keep  it  a  feast  to  the  Lord  through- 
out your  generations;  ye  shall  keep  it  a  feast  by  an  ordinance 
forever."  Ex.  12:14.  It  must  be  ^Q^t  "' throughout  their 
generations'^  and  '^forever'^^  just  like  the  Sabbath.  So  of  the 
offering  of  incense.  '''' K perpetual  incense  before  the  Lord 
throughout  your  generations^  Ex.  30:  8.  Now  if  the 
Adventist  argument  for  the  Sabbath  based  on  the  terms 


260  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

"perpetual,"  * 'forever,"  and  * 'throughout  your  genera^ 
tions,"  is  good,  then  they  ought  to  keep  the  passover  and 
offer  incense!  This  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  weakness  of  Sab- 
batarian arguments.  The  same  argument  will  prove  the 
perpetuity  of  burnt  offerings,  Ex.  29:  42;  atonement,  Ex. 
30: 10;  washing  of  hands  and  feet;  Ex.  30:  21;  first  fruits, 
Lev.  23:  14;  meat  offering.  Lev.  6:  18;  oil  for  lamps,  Lev. 
24:  3;  fringes,  Num.  15:  38;  pentecost.  Lev.  23:  21;  feast  of 
tabernacles.  Lev.  23:  41.  See  also  Ex.  40:  15;  Lev.  3:  IT; 
7:  36;  Num.  10:  8. 

The  application  of  these  terms  to  the  keeping  of  the  Sab- 
bath is  proof  that  it  was  to  cease.  Why  ?  Because  in  every 
case  where  these  terms  are  applied  to  the  observance  of  any 
ordinance  that  ordinance  has  ceased.  Adventists  themselves 
will  agree  to  this  in  everything  except  the  Sabbath.  None 
of  these  terms  are  ever  applied  to  moral  laws  or  duties. 
Where  do  you  read,  "you  shall  not  kill  throughout  your 
generations?  "  "It  shall  be  a  perpetual  statute  that  you  shall 
not  steal?"  "It  shall  be  a  statute  forever  that  you  shall 
have  no  other  gods  ?"  This  text,  then,  proves  that  the  Sab- 
bath was  to  cease  with  the  other  Jewish  ceremonies. 

*' Gentile  Christians  must  become  Jews,  Israelites,  and  so 
come  under  obligation  to  keep  the  Sabbath,  for  the  Sabbath 
was  given  to  Israel  forever  throughout  their  generations." 
This  is  a  favorite  Advent  argument  for  the  law  and  Sabbath. 
But  see  its  utter  fallacy:  Burnt  offerings,  incense,  washing 
of  hands  and  feet,  fringes,  priesthood,  circumcision,  pass- 
over,  and  all  the  Jewish  law  were  also  given  to  Israel  to 
keep  forever  throughout  their  generations.  See  above. 
Hence  the  argument  proves  that  we  must  keep  all  these  as 
well  as  the  Sabbath !   Do  Adventists  keep  any  of  these :    No. 

It  is  argued  that  the  Sabbath  must  be  of  perpetual  obliga- 
tion because  it  is  associated  in  the  decalogue  with  command- 
ments of  that  nature.     But  it  is  also  associated  time  and 


THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  261 

AgaiD  with  the  ceremonial  rites,  types  and  shadows  which 
were  peculiarly  Jewish.  Thus:  '*Keep  my  Sabbaths  and 
reverence  my  sanctury."  Lev.  19:  30.  ''The  Seventh  day 
it  the  Sabbath."  Lev.  23:  3.  "At  even  is  the  Lord's  pass- 
over."  Verse  5.  *' The  feast  of  unleavened  bread."  Verse 
6.  In  verse  38  the  Sabbath  is  named  with  "gifts,"  "vows" 
and  * 'offerings."  In  Lev.  24: 1-8  the  Sabbath  is  named  with 
the  offerings  of  oil,  bread,  frankincense.  In  Num.  28:  9, 10, 
it  is  classed  with  the  offerings  of  lambs,  meat  and  drink 
offerings,  burnt  offerings,  etc.  In  1  Chron.  23:  29-31,  the 
Sabbath  is  classed  with  meat  offering,  sacrifices,  new  moons, 
feasts,  etc.  This  fact  offsets  all  the  argument  drawn  from 
its  place  in  the  decalogue. 

THE  SABBATH  IN  THE   HISTORICAL  BOOKS. 

From  Joshua  to  Job  not  a  word  is  said  indicating  that 
the  Sabbath  was  for  any  one  but  Jews;  hence  no  argument 
can  be  drawn  from  this  source  to  bind  it  upon  the  Gentile 
Christians. 

THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  PROPHETS. 

The  Sabbath  is  not  mentioned  in  Job,  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes,  Daniel,  and  most  of  the  minor  prophets. 
Nothing  is  said  about  it  by  any  of  the  prophets  which  can 
fairly  be  made  to  apply  to  Christians.  Several  texts  are 
applied  by  Adventists  to  our  times,  but  it  is  all  assumption 
without  proof.  For  instance,  Isa.  56  is  used  to  prove  that 
the  Gentile  Christians  should  keep  the  Sabbath.  It  says: 
The  stranger.  Gentile,  "that  keepeth  the  Sabbath  from  pol- 
luting it,  and  taketh  hold  of  my  covenant;  even  them  will  I 
bring  to  my  holy  mountain,  and  make  them  joyful  in  my 
house  of  prayer;  their  burnt  offerings  and  their  sacrifices 
shall  be  accepted  upon  mine  altar. "  Verses  6,  7.  If  this 
proves  that  Gentiles  must  keep  the  Sabbath,  it  also  proves 
that  they  must  offer  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  upon 


262  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

God's  altar  in  the  temple  on  Mount  Zion  in  Jerusalem,  for 
all  those  are  mentioned  as  plainly  as  the  Sabbath.  Either, 
then,  this  applies  to  the  Jewish  age  and  to  those  Gentile 
proselytes  who  embraced  Judaism  and  were  circumcised, 
Ex.  12:  48,  and  observed  all  Jewish  rites;  or  if  it  applies  to 
the  Christian  age,  then  these  terms  "Sabbath,"  "altar," 
"sacrifice,"  "my  house,"  "my  holy  mountain,"  must  be 
taken  figuratively,  for  Christians  do  not  ofier  sacrifices,  nor 
have  a  literal  altar,  nor  go  to  Jerusalem  to  worship  in  that 
house  nor  on  that  mountain. 

So  Isa  58:  12-13  is  boldly  applied  to  our  days  and  to  the 
work  of  the  Adventists  in  urging  all  to  keep  the  Jewish 
Sabbath.  But  there  is  not  a  word  in  all  the  chapter  even 
hinting  such  a  thing.  All  this  they  assume  without  any 
proof  and  then  apply  the  words  to  suit  their  purpose.  I  did 
that  a  hundred  times  while  with  them,  just  as  the  rest  did. 
I  know  just  how  they  do  it.  At  last  I  lost  all  confidence  in 
such  a  reckless  way  of  handling  the  word  of  God.  Then  I 
had  to  quit  using  the  most  of  their  proof  texts  on  the  Sab- 
bath, this  with  others.  Look  at  it.  The  whole  chapter  is 
addressed  to  the  Jews,  "the  house  of  Jacob,"  verse  1,  the 
"nation,"  verse  2,  and  so  on.  Often  in  the  Jewish  age  God 
called  them  to  reform  their  lax  ways  in  keeping  the  Sabbath 
as  well  as  in  other  things.  This  is  one  of  those  cases.  Isa. 
66:  22,  23.  In  the  new  earth  "it  shall  come  to  pass  that 
from  one  new  moon  to  another,  and  from  one  Sabbath  to 
another,  shall  all  flesh  come  to  worship  before  me,  saith  the 
Lord."  This  shows  that  the  Sabbath  will  be  kept  in  tho 
next  world,  hence  it  is  perpetual  and  so  should  be  kept  now. 
But  it  says  just  the  same  of  the  new  moons  and  places  them 
first  before  the  Sabbath.  So  if  this  text  proves  that  we 
should  keep  the  Sabbath  it  proves  we  should  keep  the  new 
moons  also.     Do  Adventists  keep  the  new  moons  ? 

Ez.  22:  26.     "  Her  priests  have  violated  my  law,  and 


THE   SABBATH  IN  THE   OLD  TESTAMENT.  263 

have  profaned  mine  holy  things;  they  nave  put  no  difference 
between  the  holy  and  profane,  neither  have  they  showed 
difference  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean,  and  have  hid 
their  eyes  from  my  Sabbaths,  and  I  am  profaned  among 
them."  Thig  text  they  also  apply  to  their  work  now  and  to 
the  ministers  who  oppose  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  But  there 
is  not  a  word  in  the  whole  chapter  that  even  intimates  that 
thfs  applies  away  down  here  in  the  gospel  and  to  Gentiles. 
But  God  himself  applies  it  to  the  Jewish  nation  when  they 
were  overthrown  by  Babylon  several  hundred  years  before 
Christ.  Read  the  whole  chapter  and  compare  it  with  Neh. 
13:  17,  18.  See  verses  2,  6, 18, 19,  etc.  *'  Wilt  thou  judge 
the  bloody  city,"  etc.  "Behold,  the  princes  of  Israel." 
"  The  house  of  Israel  is  to  me  become  dross."  "  Therefore 
will  I  gather  you  into  the  midst  of  Jerusalem."  The  evi- 
dence is  clear  that  it  applies  there,  while  no  proof  whatever 
^an  be  given  to  show  that  it  belongs  awa}"  down  here  where 
Adventists  apply  it.  I  became  fully  convinced  that  it  was 
by  such  groundless  assumptions  as  these,  by  roundabout 
and  far-fetched  arguments,  that  the  seventh-day  theory  is 
sustained.  When  you  look  for  one  plain,  direct  statement 
in  all  the  Bible  requiring  Gentile  Christians  to  keep  the  Sab- 
bath, it  cannot  be  found.  It  has  to  be  inferred  from  this, 
guessed  from  that,  and  concluded  from  the  other;  all  infer- 
ence, nothing  direct.  So  the  Old  Testament  furnishes  no 
evidence  that  Christians  are  to  keep  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 
If  such  proof  is  to  be  found,  it  must  be  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment itself. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
THE   SABBATH  IN  THE   GOSPELS. 

With  the  opening  of  the  gospel  comes  the  most  glorious 
period  of  the  church's  history.  The  Son  of  God  himself 
stands  before  us  clothed  with  all  the  authority  of  heaven. 
Matt.  28:  18.  God  says,  ''Hear  ye  him."  Matt.  17:  5. 
He  came  to  introduce  the  gospel,  "a  new  and  living  way," 
Heb.  10:20,  "the  new  covenant,"  /'a  better  covenant" 
Heb.  8:  6,  8,  which  sets  aside  and  supercedes  the  old,  verse 
13.  Compared  to  the  Jewish  age  it  is  a  "great  light,"  Matt. 
4:  16,  and  the  gospel  church  is  represented  as  "a  woman 
clothed  with  the  sun,  and  the  moon  under  her  feet. "  Rev. 
12:  1.  Much  which  before  was  dark,  shadowy  and  mysteri- 
ous, is  now  light  and  plain.     Rom.  16:  25,  26. 

A  great  and  radical  change  in  the  mode  of  worshipping 
God  is  now  introduced.  Many  institutions  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which  were  once  given  in  the  most  solemn  manner; 
and  by  the  authority  of  God  himself,  are  no  longer  binding. 

Now,  where  shall  we  look  to  find  the  clearest  light  upon 
these  old  institutions  ?  Where  shall  we  go  to  learn  the  real 
design  of  them  all  ?  Where  shall  we  turn  to  obtain  the 
necessary  rules  for  a  Christian  to  live  by  ?  Shall  we  go  back 
to  the  moonlight  of  the  Jewish  law  ?  to  the  starlight  of  the 
patriarchal  age  ?  or  shall  we  come  to  the  full  sunlight  of  the 
gospel  ?  Evidently  the  New  Testament  furnishes  the  clearest, 
and  only  authoritative  guide  for  the  Christian.  The  Old 
Testament  can  be  read  and  rightly  understood  only  in  the 

(264) 


THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  265 

light  of  the  New.  But  it  is  a  fact  that  Sabbatarians  have  to 
go  back  to  the  Old  Testament,  even  clear  back  to  the  uncer- 
tain institutions  of  the  patriarchal  age,  as  their  clearest  and 
most  certam  authority  for  the  seventh  day.  The  evidence 
from  the  New  Testament  only  comes  in  as  secondary  and 
collateral.  All  their  strongest  arguments  for  the  Sabbath 
are  away  back  among  the  shadows  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Take  these  from  them,  and  the  very  foundation  has  fallen 
out  from  their  theory.  I  know  that  this  is  so,  for  I  have 
gone  over  the  ground  a  thousand  times.  I  know  just  how 
a  seventh  day  man  feels,  and  where  he  rests  his  confidence. 
It  is  in  Genesis  and  the  law.  Of  the  New  Testament  he  is 
a  little  shy.  But  is  there  any  other  Christian  duty  which  is 
plainly  laid  down  only  in  the  Old  Testament  ?  I  do  not 
think  of  a  single  one,  though  in  the  past  I  tried  hard  and 
long  to  find  it.  On  all  other  points  the  New  Testament  is 
clear  and  full.  In  it  we  have  chapter  after  chapter,  epistle 
after  epistle,  and  book  after  book  packed  full  of  instruction 
on  every  Christian  duty  in  every  possible  phase  of  it.  The 
duty  or  the  sin  covered  by  each  of  the  other  nine  command- 
ments is  directly  named  many  times  over  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. But  the  duty  to  keep  the  seventh  day  is  not  once 
mentioned.     We  arrange  side  by  side — 

THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS  OF  THE    THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS  OF  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT.  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

1.  "Thou  shalt  have  no  other         1.  "We  preach  unto  you  that 
Gods  before  me."    Ex.  20:  3.  ye  should  turn  from  these  vanities 

unto  the  living  God,  which  made 
heaven  and  earth  and  the  sea." 
Acts  14:  15. 

2.  "Thou  Shalt  not  make  unto         2.  "Little  children  keep  your 
thee  any  graven  image;     *     *    *      selves  from  idols."    John  5:  21. 
thou  Shalt  not  bow  down  to  them 

Dor  serve  them."    Ex.  20:  4,  5. 

3.  "Thou  Shalt  not  take   the         3.    "But  above  all  things,  my 
name    of    the  Lord  thy  God  in      brethren,   swear  not,  neither  by 
vain."    Ex.  30:  7.  heaven,  neither  by  the  earth,  nei- 
ther by  any  other  oath."    James 
5:12. 


266  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

4.  "Remember  the  Sabbath  day  4.  Thei:;  is  no  command  in  all 
lo  keep  it  holy."    Ex.  20:  8.                the  New  Testament  to  keep  the 

the  seventh  day 

5.  "Honor  thy  father  and  thy         6.  "Children,  obey  your  parents 
mother."    Ex.  20: 12.  in  the  Lord,  for  this  is  right." 

Eph.  6:1. 

6.  "Thou  Shalt  not  kill."    Ex.         6.  "Thou  shalt  not  kill."   Rom. 
20: 13.  18:  9. 

7.  "Thou  Shalt  not  commit  adul-         7.     "Neither    fornicators    nor 
tery."    Ex.  20:  14.  idolators  nor  adulterers    *     *     * 

shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 

20^'l5.'^^''''  '^^^^  ''''*  ^^^^^'"    ^^'      ^  ^.'''""S^teai  no  more."  Eph.  4:  28. 

9.  "Thou  shalt  not  bear  false         9    "Lie  not  "    Col  3-9 
witness."    Ex.  20: 16. 

10.  "Thou  shalt  not  covet."  Ex.  10.  "Covetousness,  let  it  not  be 
20:  17.                                                      named  among  you."    Eph.  5:  3. 

''The  duty  of  men  to  worship  the  Lord  God  only  as 
taught  in  the  first  commandment  is  found  no  less  than  fifty 
times  in  the  New  Testament.  Idolatry,  which  is  the  second 
commandment,  is  condemned  twelve  times.  Profanity,  the 
third  commandment,  is  plainly  condemned  four  times. 
Honor  thy  father  and  mother,  which  is  the  fifth  command- 
ment, is  taught  six  times  at  least.  Murder,  which  is  the 
sixth  prohibition,  is  found  condemned  six  tunes.  Adultery, 
the  seventh,  is  condemned  twelve  times.  Theft,  the  eighth, 
six  times.  False  witness,  the  ninth,  four  times.  Covetous- 
ness,  the  tenth,  nine  times.  Now,  with  these  facts  before 
us,  how  can  there  be  any  danger  that  the  law  of  God  will  be 
made  void?  Another  remarkable  fact  is  that  the  fourth 
commandment  is  not  repeated  in  the  New  Testament,  that  no 
Christian  was  ever  commanded  to  observe  it,  that  no  Chris- 
tian was  ever  condemned  for  Sabbath  breaking. "  Time  and 
again,  all  through  the  New  Testament  long  lists  of  sins  em- 
bracing every  possible  shade  of  wickedness  are  given,  but  a 
disregard  of  the  seventh  day  is  never  once  included.  Thus: 
Mark  7:  21,  22,  thirteen  sins;  Rom.  1:  29-31,  nineteen  sins; 
Gal.  5:  19-21,  seventeen  sins;  2  Tim.  3:  1-4,  eighteen  sins, 
etc.    How  is  this  ?    Would  the  Sabbatarians  have  left  it  so  1 


THE   SABBATH   EST   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  267 

Strange  to  say,  the  duty  to  keep  the  seventh  day  is  not 
once  mentioned  in  the  whole  New  Testament.  There  is  not 
one  single  command  from  either  Christ  or  any  of  his  apostles 
to  keep  that  day.  It  is  not  once  said  that  it  is  wrong  to 
work  on  the  seventh  day,  or  that  God  will  bless  any  one  for 
observing  it.  There  is  no  promise  for  keeping  it,  no  threat- 
ening for  not  keeping  it.  No  one  is  ever  reproved  for  work- 
ing on  the  seventh  day,  nor  approved  for  observing  it.  If 
disregarding  the  seventh  day  is  so  great  a  crime  as  its  advo- 
cates now  claim,  it  is  unaccountable  that  no  warning  against 
it  should  be  given  in  all  the  New  Testament,  not  even  once. 
Is  all  this  silence  merely  accidental  ?  So  Sabbatarians  have 
to  believe;  but  the  supposition  is  absurd.  Evidently  it  was 
left  out  on  purpose,  the  same  as  the  pentecost,  passover,  new 
moons,  sacrifices  and  the  like. 

Paul,  in  all  his  fourteen  epistles  never  even  names  the  Sab- 
bath but  once,  and  that  only  to  show  its  abolition.  Col.  2; 
/  6.     Contrast  this  with  Adventists'  literature! 

The  usual  answer  is  that  the  Jews  were  already  keeping 
the  Sabbath,  even  too  strictly,  and  therefore  the  Jewish 
Christians  needed  no  instruction  on  this  point.  But  this 
answer  is  not  satisfactory.  The  Jews  were  just  cs  strictly 
opposed  to  false  gods  and  images,  and  yet  over  and  over 
Christians  are  warned  against  these  things.  Thus  Paul  says: 
^ '^Neither  be  ye  idolaters,"  and  "Flee  from  idolatry^ "  1  Cor. 
10:  7,  14.  But  where  does  it  say,  "Keep  the  seventh  day?" 
or  "Flee  from  Sabbath  breaking  ?"  Besides,  the  great  body 
of  the  Christian  converts  in  the  latter  years  of  the  gospel, 
were  Gentiles,  who  had  never  kept  the  seventh  day  at  alL 
Why  should  they  not  be  instructed  how  to  keep  it  ?  Why 
should  they  be  repeatedly  warned  against  all  other  evil 
practices  of  their  former  lives,  but  never  warned  against 
breaking  the  Sabbath  as  they  certainly  had  done  before  ? 
This  was  a  point  which  I  was  never  able  to  answer  satisfac 


268  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM   KENOUNCED. 

torily  to  myself  while  I  kept  the  seventh  day.  The  simple 
and  manifest  fact  is,  that  it  was  not  intended  to  bind  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  upon  the  Christian  church.  Hence  it  was 
quitely  allowed  to  drop  out  with  other  old  covenant  holy 
days  and  institutions. 

The  arguments  offered  out  of  the  New  Testament  for  the 
observance  of  the  seventh  day  are  few  and  not  hard  to  answer. 
Let  us  examine  the  main  ones. 

JESUS   KEPT   THE   SEVENTH  DAY,    THEREFORE   WE   MUST. 

With  Sabbatarians  this  argument  has  more  weight  than 
all  others  from  the  New  Testament.  It  always  did  with  me. 
But  now  I  am  satisfied  that,  when  fairly  considered,  there  is 
nothing  in  it.  Jesus  was  born  and  lived  all  his  life  under 
the  law.  Gal.  4:  4.  That  law  was  binding  till  his  death. 
Col.  2:  14.  Of  course  he  ought  to  have  kept  every  item  of 
that  law  till  the  cross,  just  as  he  evidently  did  do.  On  this 
point  Elder  George  I.  Butler,  Seventh-Day  Adventist,  sa3^s: 
"He  lived  under  all  the  ceremonies  and  observances  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  the  same  as  did  the  other  Jews.  Thus  he  was 
'born  under  the  law'  and  subject  to  it.  All  his  life  he  was 
careful  not  to  break  any  of  its  provisions,  and  he  never  per- 
mitted his  disciples  to  do  it  to  the  day  of  his  death."  "The 
Law  in    Galatians,"  page  59. 

This  is  the  plain  truth  in  the  case.  But  it  shows  the  utter 
fallacy  of  arguing  that  we  must  keep  the  seventh  day  just 
because  Jesus  did.  If  we  observe  one  institution  of  the  old 
law  just  because  Jesus  did,  then  we  should  also  keep  all  that 
he  did;  that  is,  live  just  as  the  Jews  did  under  the  law  of 
Moses!  For  that  is  just  what  Jesus  did.  He  instructed  his 
disciples  to  offer  gifts  upon  the  altar,  Matt.  5:  23,  24, 
sent  a  man  to  offer  a  gift.  Matt.  8:  4,  commanded  his  disci- 
ples to  observe  all  that  the  scribes  taught.  Matt.  23:  2,  3, 
and  was  very  particular  to  keep  the  passover  just  according 


THE   SABBATH  IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  269 

to  law  only  the  day  before  his  death.  Luke  22:  7-15.  But 
who  thinks  now  of  doing  all  these  things  because  Jesus  did! 
No  one.  Jesus  was  circumcised.  Do  Sabbatarians  circum- 
cise ?  No.  Then  why  pick  out  the  seventh  day  from  all 
other  holy  days  and  rites  and  hold  on  to  that  while  rejecting 
all  the  rest  which  he  also  observed  ?  It  seems  as  though  a 
candid  man  must  admit  that  this  argument  for  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  is  not  a  success.  If  that  day  is  binding  upon  Chris- 
tians it  must  be  upon  some  other  ground  than  because 
Jesus  kept  it  while  living  as  a  Jew  under  the  Jewish 
law. 

MARK  2:  27,  28.    the  sabbath  made  for  man. 

The  Sabbatarian  use  of  this  text  is  directly  contrary  to  its 
plainest  meaning.  Jesus  was  not  giving  a  history  of  the 
origin  of  the  Sabbath,  nor  defending  its  sacredness  against 
desecration,  nor  showing  that  it  was  made  for  all  the  race. 
No  such  thought  is  the  subject  of  his  remarks.  He  is  not 
claiming  the  Jewish  Sabbath  as  his  day,  as  the  day  conse- 
crated to  himself.  It  was  not  as  God,  the  Creator,  that  he 
claimed  to  be  its  Lord;  but  it  was  as  the  Son  of  man,  the 
representative  of  man,  that  he  claimed  to  be  lord  over  the 
Sabbath. 

Notice  his  premises  and  his  conclusions:  "The  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath:  therefore  the 
son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath."  He  says  that  as 
the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath, 
therefore  he,  a  son  of  man,  was  Lord  of  it.  Why  was 
Jesus  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  ?  Because  he  was  the  Son  of  God 
and  had  made  it  ?  Not  at  all;  but  because  he  was  the  Son 
of  man,  man  for  whom  the  Sabbath  was  made.  It  is  as  a 
man  that  he  claims  to  be  its  Lord.  And  this  he  said  to  de- 
fend his  disciples  against  the  charge  of  breaking  the  Sab- 
bath.    How  did  it  apply  %    Why,  the  Sabbath  was  made  for 


270  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

them  and  hence  it  was  only  their  servant.  They  were 
superior  to  the  Sabbath.  Notice  the  cases  he  used  to 
illustrate  his  statement.     Matt.  12  :  3-12. 

1.  David  went  to  the  priest  and  ate  holy  bread  which 
the  law  forbade  to  any  but  priests.  His  needs  were  supe- 
rior to  that  ceremonial  precept. 

2.  "  The  priests  in  the  temple  profane  the  Sabbath  and 
are  blameless."  Yerse  5.  They  would  slay  cattle  all  the 
Sabbath  day.     Their  service  was  superior  to  the  Sabbath. 

3.  If  a  sheep  fall  into  a  pit  on  the  Sabbath  they  would 
work  hard  to  get  him  out.  The  preservation  of  animal 
life  was  superior  to  the  Sabbath.  I  have  seen  Adventists 
work  hard  on  the  Sabbath  in  case  of  a  fire  to  save  even 
the  goods,  though  the  law  says,  "  In  it  thou  shalt  not  do 
any  work."  Would  they  dare  violate  the  letter  of  any 
other  commandment  that  way  ?  No.  Then,  surely,  Jesus 
himself  being  judge,  the  observance  of  the  strict  letter  of 
the  Sabbath  law  is  not  a  matter  of  the  highest  impor- 
tance. This  is  the  lesson  plainly  taught  here  by  Christ,  the 
Lord  of  the  Sabbath.  It  squarely  condemns  the  rigid  in- 
terpretation of  the  Sabbatarians  who  make  the  Sabbath 
more  importa^nt  than  man  himself  for  whom  it  was  made. 

4.  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man^  hence  the  necessi- 
ties of  men  are  above  the  Sabbath  law.  So,  then,  this 
text,  when  fairly  read,  gives  no  support  to  the  sacredness 
of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  under  the  gospel. 

MATT.  24  :  20. 
As  this  is  one  of  their  favorite  texts  we  will  examine  it. 
Foretelling  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  which  occurred  forty  years 
after  his  death,  Jesus  said  that  when  they  saw  the  armies 
come  around  the  city,  they  must  flee  immediately  or  be 
caught  in  the  city,  and  perish  with  the  others.  Hence  he 
said,  "  Let  him  v^hich  is  on  the  housetop  not  come  down  to 


THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  271 

take  anything  out  of  his  house.  Neither  let  him  which  is  in 
the  field  return  back  to  take  his  clothes.  And  woe  unto  them 
that  are  with  child,  and  to  them  that  give  suck  in  those 
days!  But  pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not  in  the  winter, 
neither  on  the  Sabbath  day.  For  then  shall  be  great  tribu- 
lation."   Matt.  24:  17-21. 

From  this  it  is  argued  that  the  Sabbath  would  continue  to 
be  a  sacred  day  after  the  resurrection.  Adventists  admit 
that  it  would  not  be  a  violation  of  the  Sabbath  to  flee  on  that 
day  in  case  of  necessity.  Then  where  is  there  any  argu- 
ment in  the  text  ?  If  their  flight  had  occurred  on  the  Sab- 
bath to  save  their  lives,  would  that  have  desecrated  the  day  ? 
They  own  that  it  would  not.  Then  the  sacredness  of  the  day 
was  not  what  Jesus  had  in  view. 

The  context  plainly  shows  that  it  was  for  their  safety  that 
he  was  providing,  not  for  the  keeping  of  the  day.  The  proper 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  the  subject  at  all.  The 
dangers  and  tribulations  of  that  time  was  the  subject.  No- 
tice four  points.  1.  Those  with  child.  2.  Those  with 
nursing  babes.  3.  Fleeing  in  the  winter.  4.  Fleeing  on 
the  Sabbath.  If  they  had  to  flee  suddenly,  in  haste,  and 
without  any  preparation,  even  without  their  ordinary  clothes, 
women  with  child  or  with  little  babes,  or  persons  in  the  cold 
of  winter  would  be  liable  to  sufier  or  die.  So  in  all  these 
three  cases  Jesus  refers  to  the  inconvenience  and  danger  of 
their  flight;  and  this  is  exactly  why  he  mentions  the  Sabbath. 
On  that  day  the  gates  of  the  city  would  be  shut  and  so  hin- 
der them  greatly  if  not  detain  them  entirely.  The  gates  of 
all  the  villages  through  which  they  must  pass  would  be 
closed.  The  Jews  would  suspect  them  and  arrest  them  as 
traitors.  Hence  it  would  be  dangerous,  almost  impossible, 
to  flee  on  that  day.  A  candid  person  can  see  that  this  is  all 
there  is  to  that  text.  Of  this  I  became  convinced  sometime 
before  I  gave  up  the  Sabbath,  and  so  I  stopped  using  it. 


272  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

MATT.  28:  1,  MARK  16:  1,  2.     "the  sabbath"  is  the  DAI 

BEFORE    "the   FIRST  DAY   OF   THE  WEEK." 

"In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath  as  it  began  to  dawn  towards 
the  first  day  of  the  week."  "When  the  Sabbath  was  past, 
*  *  *  the  first  day  of  the  week."  According  to  this  the  Sab 
oath,  after  the  death  of  Christ,  is  still  the  day  before  the  first 
day  of  the  week  Hence  the  first  day  of  the  week  on  which 
Christ  rose  was  not  the  Sabbath  yet.  Answer:  All  the  days 
in  the  week,  in  the  month,  and  in  the  year,  still  continued  to  be 
called  by  their  old  Jewish  names  for  many  years  after  Christ; 
but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  continued  to  be  sacred  days, 
for  Paul  expressly  states  that  all  those  feasts  days,  new 
moons,  and  Sabbath  days  were  nailed  to  the  cross.  Col.  2: 
14, 16;  Gal.  4: 10, 11;  Rom.  14:  5,  6.  Take  three  examples: 
"When  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,"  Acts  2:  1; 
**Then  were  the  days  of  unleavened  bread."  Acts  12:  3. 
"Went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath  day."  Acts  13: 
14.  Here,  long  after  the  cross,  we  have  the  same  old  names 
for  three  of  the  Jewish  holy  days,  viz:  Pentecost,  days  of 
unleavened  bread,  and  Sabbath  day.  Are  all  these  days  still 
holy  days  because  they  are  still  called  by  their  former  names  ? 
If  so,  then  we  ought  to  observe  Pentecost  and  the  days  of 
unleavened  bread  as  well  as  keep  the  Sabbath.  So  there  is  no 
force  in  the  argument  from  the  use  of  the  word  Sabbath  after 
the  cross.  The  resurrection  day  was  not  called  the  Sabbath  in 
the  New  Testament  nor  by  Christians  for  several  hundred 
years  after  Christ.    It  was  called  "Lord's  Day."    Rev.  1: 10. 

"7^6  SabhatK'''  was  the  name  of  the  Jewish  rest  day, 
"which  was  a  shadow  of  things  to  come."  Col.  2:  16,  17, 
but  the  resurrection  day  is  another  da}^  entirely .  It  is  called 
"the  first  day  of  the  week,"  "the  eighth  day,"  or  the 
"Lord's  Day."  It  is  only  in  an  accommodated  sense  that  it 
is  called  the  Sabbath  now  as  we  use  the  words  "altar,'* 
"sanctuary,"  ^*temple,"  "sacrifice,"  "Israel,"  etc. 


THE   SABBATH  IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  273 

LUKE   23:    56.      THE    WOMAN    '^RESTED    THE     SABBATH    DAT 
ACCORDING   TO  THE   C03I3IANDMENT. " 

This  was  after  Chnst  died;  hence  it  shows  that  they 
thought  that  the  Sabbath  was  still  to  be  kept.  They  were 
the  followers  of  Jesus  and  knew  what  he  taught.  Answer: 
But  this  was  before  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  before  they 
knew  anything  about  his  resurrection,  and  before  they  had 
any  idea  of  the  great  change  which  the  gospel  was  to  make 
in  the  service  of  God.  Their  old  Jewish  idea  still  blinded 
their  minds  so  that  they  could  not  at  once  take  in  the  nature 
of  what  Jesus  had  really  come  to  do.  Just  before  this 
Jesus  said:  ''I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but 
ye  cannot  bear  them  now."  John  16:  12.  So  he  had  not 
tried  to  explain  all  these  less  important  matters  to  them;  but 
he  said  that  he  would,  after  the  resurrection,  send  them  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  guide  them  into  all  truth.  John  16:  13.  It 
was  not  till  after  the  Holy  Ghost  came  upon  them  at  Pente- 
cost that  they  began  to  comprehend  the  true  nature  of  the 
gospel.  So  it  is  no  proof  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  is  binding 
on  Gentiles  because  the  Jewish  women  kept  it  while  Jesus 
was  dead  and  in  his  gi-ave.  Turn  to  Acts  1:  14,  and  2:  1, 
and  we  find  all  these  same  women  fifty  days  after  the  resur- 
rection still  carefully  keeping  *'the  day  of  Pentecost," 
another  Jewish  holy  day.  But  do  our  Sabbatarians  keep 
Pentecost  because  these  women  kept  it  ?  No,  but  they 
should  if  they  keep  the  Sabbath  because  those  women  kept 
it.     This  shows  how  groundless  that  argument  is. 

THE  SABBATH   59   TIMES  IN   THE   NEW  TESTAMENT. 

They  say,  the  fact  that  the  Sabbath  is  named  59  times  in 
the  New  Testament  is  proof  that  it  was  still  of  great  import- 
ance and  should  be  kept.  Well,  the  temple  is  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament  115  times;  circumcision,  55  times;  sac- 
rifices, 38  times;  the  passover,  28  times,  etc.  Then  I  suppose 
'^e  ought  also  to  have  all  these  over  in  the  gospell 


374  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

THE   SABBATH  IN   THE   BOOK   OF  ACTS. 

Sabbatarians  think  they  have  a  fair  argument  in  the  Acts. 
Here  the  seventh  day  is  always  called  "  the  Sabbath,"  and 
it  may  be  that  the  Jewish  Christians  still  observed  it,  and 
met  with  the  Jews  in  worship  on  that  day.  From  this 
it  is  concluded  that  all  Christians  should  keep  that  day,  too. 
This  is  based  upon  the  false  assumption  that  whatever  cus- 
toms and  laws  of  the  old  covenant  were  still  observed  for  a 
few  years  by  the  Jewish  Christians  after  the  resurrection, 
must  be  binding  upon  the  Gentile  church  now. 

A  careful  examination  of  what  the  disciples  did  really  do 
for  many  years  after  the  resurrection  will  show  that  they 
kept  all  the  Mosaic  law,  including  feast  days,  the  Sabbath 
day,  sacrifices,  circumcision,   vows,  and  the  whole  Jewish 
ritual.     But  they  did  this  as  Jews,  according  to  their  na' 
tional  law  and  long  established  custom.    That  they  did  not  do 
so  as  a  Christian  duty  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  Gentile 
Christians  were  not  required  to  observe  these  things.    Acts 
15:     19-28;  21:     25.     ''As  touching  the  Gentiles  which 
believe,  we  have  written  and  concluded  that  they  observed 
no  such  thing."     Every  mention  of  the  Sabbath  in  Acts, 
without  a  single  exception,  is  in  connection  with  the  Jewish 
worship  on  that  day.    Acts  13:  14, 15,  42-45;  15:  21;  16:  13; 
17:  1,  2;  18:  4.    The  law  and  the  prophets  were  read,  and 
Jewish  worship  conducted  as  usual.    Certainly  the  disciples 
could  not  hold  distinctively  Christian  meeting  here  under 
these  circumstances.    They  must  assemble  by  themselves  to 
worship  Jesus  and  have  the  Lord's  supper,  and  that  is  just 
what  we  find  them  doing  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
Acts  20:  7.     There  is  no  record  of  a  single  meeting  of  Gen- 
tile Christians  upon  the  seventh  day,  nor  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, except  in  the  Jewish  worship. 

Consider  a  few  facts  as  to  why  the  Jewish  Christians  did 
not  immediately  give  up  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  law. 


THE  SABBATH  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  275 

How  carefully  and  gradually  Jesus  unfolded  his  new  doc- 
trines, even  to  the  chosen  apostles.  To  the  multitude  he  spoke 
only  in  parables  ''as  they  were  able  to  hear  it."  Mark  4:  33. 
Had  Jesus  at  once  and  plainly  told  the  people  the  radical 
chano^e  which  he  had  come  to  make  in  the  Jewish  system  of 
worship,  they  would  have  killed  him  immediately.  Even 
the  apostles  would  doubtless  have  left  him.  During  all  the 
ministry  of  our  Lord,  nothing  stands  out  more  prominently 
than  the  fact  that  he  was  gradually,  but  cautiously,  prepar- 
ing the  minds  of  his  disciples  for  the  great  change  which  his 
gospel  was  destined  to  make  in  the  worship  of  God.  The 
great  obstacles  he  had  to  contend  with  were  their  narrow 
views,  their  tenacity  for  the  forms  and  cerr  nonies  and  letter 
of  the  law,  and  Jewish  ideas  of  God's  kingdom.  That  he 
was  to  take  the  throne  of  David,  subjugate  the  world  to 
Israel,  and  csLrry  on  the  Jewish  mode  of  worship  with  the 
temple  service — this  idea  was  so  firmly  rooted  in  the  minds 
of  even  the  apostles,  that  they  could  not  understand  Jesus 
even  when  he  plainly  told  them  to  the  contrary.  Hence  the 
Saviour  simply  left  them  to  outgrow  these  ideas  as  the 
nature  of  his  gospel  more  fully  dawned  upon  them,  after  his 
resurrection  and  ascension  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Just  before  Jesus  died,  he  said:  "I  have  yet  many 
things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now. 
Howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide 
you  into  all  truth."  John  16:  12,  13.  How  often  he  had 
to  say  to  them,  "O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe." 
Luke  24:  25.  "Are  ye  also  yet  without  understanding?" 
Matt.  15:  16. 

During  all  the  ministry  of  Christ  he  never  once  stated 
directly  that  any  of  the  Jewish  rites  would  be  aboHshed,  not 
even  sacrifices,  the  temple  service,  circumcision,  the  feast 
days,  or  anything.  Yet  he  well  knew  that  all  these  were 
soon  to  end,  and  designed  that  they  should.     Neither  the 


276  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  RENOUNCED. 

Deople  nor  the  disciples   were  then  prepared  for  such  an' 
announcement.     Hence  he  left  these  things   for  them   to 
learn  later.     It  is  in  the  epistles  of  Paul  that  these   changes 
are  distinctly  stated,  just  where  we  find  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
abrogated. 

Forty  days  after  the  resurrection  still  found  them  cling- 
ing to  their  old  Jewish  idea  of  the  temporal  reign  of  Jesus 
at  Jerusalem.  ''Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  again 
the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?"  Knowing  that  it  was  impossible 
to  correct  their  wrong  notions  by  a  mere  statement,  Jesus 
left  them  to  outgrow  these  errors  as  they  learned  more  of 
the  gospel.  Now  follow  them  through  the  book  of  Acts, 
and  observe  hov^^^,.  long  and  tenaciously  they  held  on  to  all  the 
observances  of  the  old  Jewish  law,  not  only  the  Sabbath, 
but  all  the  temple  service  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
On  Pentecost  we  find  them  keeping  the  sacred  day  with  the 
other  Jews.  Acts  2.  As  late  as  ten  years  after  the  resur- 
rection they  wore  "preaching  the  word  to  none  but  unto  the 
Jews  only."  Acts  11:  19.  Not  a  sermon  had  they  thought 
of  preaching  to  a  Gentile  till  God,  by  a  special  miracle,  sent 
Peter  to  Cornelius.  Acts  10.  As  late  as  this  Peter  was 
scrupulously  regarding  the  Mosaic  law  of  meats.  He  said, 
'  'I  have  never  eaten  anything  that  is  common  or  unclean. " 
Verse  14.  And  he  designed  to  keep  right  on  observing  it. 
And  when  the  Holy  Spirit  came  upon  the  Gentiles,  the  dis- 
ciples were  astonished  "because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also 
was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Verse  45. 
When  he  returned  to  Jerusalem,  the  whole  church  was  in 
an  uproar  over  itc  "And  when  Peter  was  come  up  to 
Jerusalem,  they  that  were  of  the  circumcision  contended 
with  him,  saying.  Thou  wentest  in  to  men  uncircumcised, 
and  didst  eat  with  them."     Acts  11:  2,  3. 

Up  to  this  time,  then,  we  find  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
witJi  Peter  at  its  head,  still  keeping  the  Jewish  law  concern 


THE   SABBATH  IN   THE   NEW  TESTA^IENT.  277 

ing  food,  and  refusing  to  eat  with  Gentiles.  Now  study  the 
great  council  at  Jerusalem,  held  over  twenty  years  after  the 
resurrection.  Acts  15.  Not  only  did  the  whole  church  in 
Judea  keep  the  entire  Mosaic  law  in  all  its  rites,  including 
circumcision,  but  some  of  them  endeavored  also  to  force  it 
upon  the  Gentile  converts.  Verses  1-19.  But  through  the 
influence  of  Paul,  this  move  was  defeated.  If  it  had  not  been 
that,  in  the  providence  of  God,  Paul  was  raised  up  to  oppose 
it,  the  whole  Christian  church  would  have  been  placed 
under  the  bondage  of  the  Mosaic  law.  As  it  was,  that  coun- 
cil freed  only  the  Gentile  converts  from  obedience  to  Moses' 
law.  Acts  15:  19,  23;  21:  25.  All  Jewish  Christians  still 
kept  it. 

Even  as  late  as  A.  D.  60,  or  nearly  thirty  years  after  the 
cross,  we  still  find  the  whole  Jewish  church  in  Judea  strictly 
keeping  the  law  of  Moses  as  to  circumcision,  ofierings, 
vows,  shaving  the  head,  etc.  Not  only  did  they  themselves 
observe  all  these  rites  of  the  old  law,  but  they  required  all 
Jewish  Christians  throughout  the  world  to  do  the  same. 
When  Paul  went  up  to  Jerusalem  only  a  few  years  before 
his  death,  they  demanded  of  him  a  pledge  that  he  himself 
also  kept  these  rites.     Read  carefully  Acts  21:  20-26. 

These  words  show  conclusively  that  the  Jewish  Christians 
observed  all  the  rites  of  the  laws  of  Moses  as  late  as  that, 
which  was  but  a  few  years  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  All 
church  historians  agree  that  the  Jewish  Christians  continued 
to  observe  the  seventh  day,  even  for  some  time  after  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem,  as  we  have  seen. 

Philip  Schafi*,  the  greatest  of  living  authors,  in  his  History 
of  the  Apostolical  Church,  page  118,  says:  "So  far  as  we 
know,  the  Jewish  Christians  of  the  first  generation,  at  least 
in  Palestine,  scripturally  observed  the  Sal^bath,  the  annual 
Jewish  feasts,  and  the  whole  Mosaic  ritual,  and  celebrated  in 
addition  to  these  .the  Christian  Sunday,  the  death  and  resur 


278  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

rection  of  the  Lord,  and  the  holy  supper.  But  this  union 
was  gradually  weakened,  and  was  at  last  entirely  broken  by 
the  destruction  of  the  temple.  ^  -^  "^  The  Jewish  Sab 
bath  passed  into  the  Christian  Sunday."  Elder  Waggoner, 
Adventist,  says:  "Dr.  Schafi  is  justly  esteemed  as  a  man 
of  extensive  learning,  and  whose  testimony  regarding  facts 
no  one  would  call  in  question,"  Replies  to  Canright,  page 
132.  Good.  Now  let  them  accept  Dr.  Schaflf's  statement 
and  cease  their  denials. 

.  Elder  Butler,  Adventist,  truly  says:  "Indeed,  it  may  well 
be  doubted  whether  a  large  portion  of  the  early  church  who 
were  Jews  before  conversion  ever  fully  realized  the  scope 
and  extent  of  the  gospel  in  setting  aside  those  laws  pecu- 
liarly Jewish.  They  clung  to  them,  and  were  zealous  for 
them  long  after  they  were  abolished  at  the  cross.  To  Paul 
we  are  indebted,  through  the  blessing  of  God,  for  the  only 
full  explanation  of  the  proper  relation  of  these  laws  to  the 
plan  of  salvation."     "Law  in  Galatians,"  page  8. 

How  much,  then,  does  it  prove  in  favor  of  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  to  find  that  it  was  still  called  "the  Sabbath,"  or  that 
it  was  kept  by  the  Jewish  Christians,  or  even  by  Paul  him- 
self ?  Just  nothing  at  all;  for  by  the  same  argument,  as  we 
have  seen,  we  must  observe  the  passover,  pentecost,  ofier 
offerings,  make  vows,  shave  your  heads,  be  circumcised,  and 
keep  all  the  rites  of  the  Mosaic  law  the  same  as  those  disci- 
ples did  for  years. 

THE    APOSTLE    PAUL    AND    THE    KEEPING    OF    THE    SABBATH 

DAY. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  try  to  make  an  argument  for  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  from  PauFs  example.  They  count  up  some 
84  Sabbaths  which  they  claim  he  kept,  and  they  say  that  if 
he  kept  it  we  ought  also.  I  used  to  think  there  was  great 
force  in  this  argument  and  have  used  it  scores  of  times  to 


THE  SABBATH  IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  279 

convince  others.  But  I  became  satisfied  finally  that  the  whole 
argument  was  a  fallacy.     Let  us  examine  it. 

1.  Paul  was  a  Jew,  but  we  are  Gentiles. 

2.  Paul  was  brought  up  in  all  the  observances  of  the  Jew 
ish  law.     Acts  22:  3.     We  were  not. 

3.  The  great  desire  of  Paul's  heart  was  to  win  his  Jew- 
ish brethren  to  Christ.  To  do  this  he  was  willing  to  die, 
}ea  even  to  be  accursed  himself.    Kom.  9:  3,  4. 

4.  To  win  these  Jewish  brethren  he  was  very  cautious  not  to 
do  anything,  as  far  as  he  could  possibly  avoid  it,  Avhich  would 
prejudice  them  against  him  and  so  cut  ofl"  his  access  to 
them. 

5.  As  these  Jews  were  very  zealous  in  the  observance  of 
all  the  Jewish  law,  Paul  knew  that  he  must  himself  also 
keep  this  law  if  he  were  to  obtain  any  access  to  them. 
Hence  he  says:  "Unto  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew  that  I 
might  gain  the  Jews;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law  [the 
Jews],  as  under  the  law,  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are 
under  the  law."  "And  this  I  do  for  the  gospel's  sake."  1 
Cor.  9:  20,  23.  See  what  he  did  in  the  case  of  Timothy. 
''Him  would  Paul  have  to  go  forth  with  him;  and  took 
and  circumcised  him  because  of  the  Jews  which  were  in 
those  quarters;  for  they  knew  all  that  his  father  was  a 
Greek."  Acts  16:  3.  Paul  wanted  Timothy  to  help  him 
among  the  Jews,  but  he  knew  that  the  Jews  would  not  listen 
to  him  if  he  were  not  circumcised.  So  he  circumcised 
Timothy  to  gain  the  Jews,  though  he  said,  '  'Circumcision  is 
nothing."  1  Cor.  7:  19.  For  just  the  same  reason  he  kept 
the  Pentecost,  Acts  18:  21;  20:  16;  shaved  his  head.  Acts  18: 
18;  made  ofierings.  Acts  21:  20-26;  and  lived  the  same  as 
the  Jews  did,  though  he  knew  and  taught  that  all  these 
things  were  done  away. 

Now  suppose  it  could  be  shown  that  Paul  always  kept  the 
Sabbath,  would  that  prove  that  he  regarded  it  as  obligatory 


280  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

upon  all  Christians,  specially  the  Gentile  Christians  I  Sureljf 
not.  To  them  he  wrote  very  plainly  that  they  were  not 
to  keep  the  law  concerning  meats,  drinks,  feast  da3''S,  new 
moons  and  Sabbath  days.  See  Col.  2:  14-17;  Rom.  14: 1-5; 
Gal.  4:  10.  He  taught  with  regard  to  all  these  just  as  he  did 
about  circumcision,  Gal.  5:  2,  that  none  of  these  were  neces- 
sary,  3^et  he  himself  circumcised  Timothy. 

We  will  now  examine  every  text  where  Paul  is  said  to 
have  kept  the  Sabbath.  Acts  13: 14,  15.  "He  went  into  the 
synagof^ue  on  the  Sabbath  day  and  sat  down.  After  the 
reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets"  he  was  invited  to 
preach  to  them,  which  he  did.  This  was  with  the  Jews  in 
Jewish  worship,  in  the  Jewish  sjmagogue,  on  the  Jewish 
Sabbath.  Paul  as  a  Jew  joined  them  in  this,  in  order  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  them.  So,  verses  42-46,  on  the  next 
Sabbath  he  met  with  them  again  in  the  same  place  for  the 
same  purpose.  This  was  two  Sabbaths  Paul  kept.  Acts  16: 
13,  "on  the  Sabbath  he  went  out  of  the  city  by  a  river  side 
where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made,"  or  rather  where  there 
was  a  proseuche^  a  Jewish  house  of  prayer.  So  the  Syriac 
and  Greek.  Here  he  found  Jewish  women  at  worship, 
and  preached  Jesus  to  them.  This  was  the  third  Sabbath 
he  kept.  Acts  17:  1,  2.  Paul  "came  to  Thessalonica  where 
was  a  synagogue  of  the  Jews,  *  *  -^^  and  three  Sab- 
bath days  reasoned  with  them."  Here  again  it  was  in  the 
Jewish  worship  among  the  Jews  in  their  synagogue  on  their 
Sabbath.  Three  more  Sabbaths  here,  six  so  far.  Acts  18: 
1-4.  Paul  is  again  among  the  Jews  '  'and  he  reasoned  in  the 
synagogue  every  Sabbath  and  persuaded  the  Jews  and  the 
Greeks."  Same  as  before,  his  Sabbath  keeping  is  every 
time  while  he  is  among  the  Jews  in  their  Sabbath  worship. 
But  how  many  Sabbaths  did  he  meet  with  them  here  ?  Verse 
11  says:  Paul  remained  there  in  Corinth  one  "year  and  six 
months,"  which  would  be  78  weeks.     Hence  Adventists  say 


THE   SABBATH  IN  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  281 

he  kept  78  Sabbaths  here.  These  added  to  six  before  make 
8tl:.  But  verses  6  and  7  put  a  difierent  face  on  the  matter. 
Instead  of  reasoning  in  the  synagogue  every  Sabbath  all  this 
time,  he  withdrew  from  the  Jews  and  said,  "Henceforth  1 
will  oro  unto  the  Gentiles."  Then  he  went  into  the  house  of 
Justus  near  the  synagogue.  So  there  is  no  evidence  that  he 
preached  in  the  synagogue  more  than  a  few  Sabbaths.  So 
their  84  Sabbaths  that  Paul  kept  dwindled  down  to  ten  or  a 
dozen  and  all  these  were  with  the  Jews  in  Jewish  worship. 
And  this  he  himself  explains  by  saying,  "Unto  the  Jews  I 
became  as  a  Jew  that  I  might  gain  the  Jews."  1  Cor. 
9:  20. 

Not  one  single  case  can  be  found  where  Paul  kept  the  Sab- 
bath in  a  Christian  assembly,  nor  is  it  ever  mentioned  in  any 
way  in  connection  with  Christian  meetings,  while  it  is  said 
that  the  disciples  met  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
Mark  this:  "Wherever  the  apostles  entered  the  Jewish 
synagogues  on  the  Sabbath  to  preach,  it  was  before  the  Chris- 
tian church  was  planted  in  such  places." 

PAUL    DID    NOTHING    AGAINST    THE   CUSTOM    OF    THE    JEWS, 
HENCE     KEPT    THE   SABBATH. 

In  Acts  25:  8,  Paul  says  he  had  done  nothing  "against  the 
law  of  the  Jews,"  and  in  Acts  28:  17  says,  he  had  "com- 
mitted nothing  against  the  people  or  customs  of  our  fathers." 
From  this  it  is  claimed  that  he  must  have  kept  the  SabbaiL, 
for  that  was  the  law  and  custom  of  the  fathers.     True,  but 
so  it  was  their  custom  to  circumcise,  to  offer  sacrifices,  to 
keep  the  new  moons,  yearly  feasts,  etc.     Hence  Paul  inu>t 
have  done  all  these.     Shall  we  then  do  all  these  because 
Paul  as  a  Jew  did  ?    Hardly.     Notice  that  nearly  every 
argument  applies  equally  as  well  to  all  the  Jewish  law 
and  would  bind  that  whole  system  on  Christians  ! 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  JEWISH  SABBATH  ABOLISHED.    COL.    ». 

1.  We  now  come  to  the  direct  statement  of  Paul  that  the 
Sabbath  was  abolished:  Col.  2: 14,  16,  17.  ''Blotting  out 
the  handwriting  of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which 
was  contrary  to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  his 
cross.  ^  ^  *  Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or 
in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy  day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or 
of  the  Sabbath  days;  which  are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come; 
but  the  body  is  of  Christ. "  With  other  Jewish  ordinances, 
the  Sabbath  was  blotted  out  and  nailed  to  the  cross;  there- 
fore no  man  is  to  judge  us  about  keeping  *'the  Sabbath 
days."  The  statement  is  positive  and  plain.  When  I  kept 
the  seventh  day  this  text  always  perplexed  me  as  it  does  my 
Advent  brethren  now,  say  what  they  will.  Paul  directly 
names  "the  Sabbath"  or  "the  Sabbath  days,"  for  there  is  no 
difference,  as  among  the  shadows  which  have  passed  away. 

2.  It  is  said  by  some  that  "the  Sabbath  days,"  plural 
number,  is  not  the  same  as  "the  Sabbath,"  singular  number^ 
hence  is  not  the  weekly  Sabbath.  This  is  a  groundless  ob- 
jection, for  both  the  singular  and  the  plural  numbers  are 
used  indifferently  for  the  weekly  Sabbath.  Thus  Green- 
field's Greek  N.  T.  Lexicon  says:  "Sabbaton.  The  Sab- 
bath, ^  *  *  both  in  the  singular  and  plural. "  Bagster's 
Greek  Lexicon  says:  "The  Jewish  Sabbath  both  in  the 
singular  and  plural."  So  plain  is  this  fact  that  even  Elder 
Smith,  Adventist,  is  compelled  to  admit  it  though  he  tries 
to  save  his  theory  by  excepting  Col.  2,  and  Acts  17:  2,  but 
without  reason.     He  says:  "When  it  [Sabbaton]  is  used  in 

(282) 


THE  JEWISH  SABBATH   ABOLISHED.  283 

the  plural  form  [excepting  Acts  17:  2  and  Col.  2:  16],  it 
means  just  the  same  as  if  it  had  been  written  in  the  singu- 
lar." Greek  Falsehood,  page  8.  Col.  2:  16,  is  no  exception 
to  the  rule.  In  Acts  17:  2,  the  word  tln^ee  is  what  marks 
the  plural.  The  Kevised  Version  properly  renders  Col.  2: 
16,  in  the  singular,  thus:  "Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you 
in  respect  of  a  Sabbath  day,"  singular  number.  Sawyer's 
translation  says:  "In  respect  to  a  feast,  or  new  moon,  or  Sab- 
bath," singular.  The  Bible  Union  says:  "Of  a  feast  day, 
or  of  a  new  moon,  or  of  a  Sabbath,"  singular. 

A  few  quotations  will  show  that  both  the  singular  and 
plural  numbers  are  used  for  the  weekly  Sabbath.  "My 
Sabbaths  [plural]  shall  ye  keep  for  it  [singular]  is  a  sign 
between  me  and  you."  Ex.  31:13.  This  is  the  weekly 
Sabbath.  "Keep  my  Sabbaths."  Lev.  19:  3.  "Beside 
the  Sabbaths  of  the  Lord."  Lev.  23:  38.  Adventists  argue 
that  this  is  the  weekly  Sabbath.     "  Blessed  is  the  man  that 

*  *  "^  keepeth  the  Sabbath,"  "  the  eunuchs  that  keep  my 
Sabbaths."  Isa.  56:  2,  4.  Either  singular  or  plural,  no 
difference.  "  I  gave  them  my  Sabbaths  to  be  a  sign. "  Ez. 
20:  12.  This  is  the  weekly  Sabbath,  as  Adventists  well 
know.  "On  the  Sabbath  days  [plural]  the  priests  in  the 
temple  profane  the  Sabbath"  [singular].  Matt.  12:  5.  Here 
we  have  in  the  same  verse  both  the  plural  and  singular  used 
for  the  weekly  Sabbath.  "Is  it  lawful  to  heal  on  the  Sab- 
bath days ?"  Matt.  12:  10.  "Taught  them  on  the  Sabbath 
days."  Luke  4:  31.  "Three  Sabbath  days  reasoned  with 
them."     Acts  17:  2.      "Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you 

*  ^  *  in  respect  of  the  Sabbath  day s. "  Col.  2: 16. 
Who  can  read  this  list  of  texts  and  not  be  profoundly  im- 
pressed that  by  "the  Sabbath  days"  of  Col.  2:  16  Paul 
means  just  what  that  language  means  in  all  the  other  cases  ? 
Of  course  he  did,  and  no  other  reasonable  application  can  be 
made  of  it. 


284  SEVENTH-DAY  ADV^NTISM  RENOUNCED. 

3.  In  the  Greek,  in  which  Paul  wrote  Col.  2:  16,  he  uses 
not  only  the  same  word  which  is  always  used  for  the  weekly 
Sabbath,  but  exactly  the  same  form  of  the  word  used  in  the 
fourth  commandment  itself !  I  will  give  the  Greek  word 
for  "  Sabbath  days"  in  Col.  2:  16  and  other  texts  where  the 
same  word  and  same  form  of  the  word,  letter  for  letter,  is 
used  for  the  weekly  Sabbath.  Col.  2: 16.  "Let  no  man  judge 
you  in  respect  to  the  Sabbath  days,"  Greek,  aaft^aTcov, 
Sabbaton,  genitive  plural. 

Ex.  20:  8,  10,  fourth  commandment,  "Remember  the  Sab- 
bath day  [Greek,  GafifiarGDv,  Sabbaton,  genitive  plural]  to 
keep  it  holy."  "But  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  [Greek, 
G  aft /Sara,  Sabbate,  accusative  plural]  of  the  Lord."  Here  it 
will  be  seen  that  Paul  uses  the  same  Greek  word,  letter  for 
letter,  that  is  used  in  the  decalogue.  Hence  he  surely  meant 
that  very  Sabbath  day.  Notice,  further,  that  in  each  case 
in  the  fourth  commandment  where  the  word  "Sabbath" 
occurs  it  is  plural  in  the  Greek.  So  if  the  use  of  the  plural 
in  Col.  2  shows  any  thing,  it  shows  that  the  Sabbath  of  the 
decalogue  is  meant.  Moreover,  the  Revised  Version  renders 
Ex.  20:  10,  and  Col.  2:  16,  exactly  alike.  Thus:  "The 
seventh  day  is  a  Sabbath  unto  the  Lord."  "Let  no  man 
judge  you  in  respect  of  'a  Sabbath.'"  Plainly,  then.  Col. 
2:  16,  refers  to  the  Sabbath  of  Ex.  20:  8-11. 

Further,  Gaf3^aTcovy  Sabbaton,  genitive  plural,  the  form 
of  the  word  used  in  Col.  2: 16,  is  the  one  often  used  in  other 
texts  for  the  weekly  Sabbath.  Thus:  Ex.  35:  3.  "Kindle  no 
^Pg     *     *     *     upon  the  Sabbath  day,"  a  a^ par  gov. 

Lev.  23-  38.  "Beside  the  Sabbaths,  oaftPaTODv,  of  the 
Lord." 

Lev.  24:  8:  "Every  Sabbath,  oap^arGov,  he  shall  set  it 
in  order." 

Num.  15:  32.  "Gathered  sticks  upon  the  Sabbath  aay," 
aap^aTGov, 


THE  JEWISH   SABBATH   ABOLISHED.  285 

Numbers  28:  9.  ''On  the  Sabbath,  ffajS/SaTGDv,  day  two 
lambs." 

Deut.  5:  12.  Fourth  commandment  again,  "Keep  the 
Sabbath,  Ga(3f3aTcov,  day." 

Isa.  58:  13.  ''Turn  away  thy  foot  from  the  Sabbath," 
aa/3/3aTGjv, 

Matt.  28:  1.     "In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath,"  aa/S/SaTcoy. 

Luke  4:  16.  "He  went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sab- 
bath, aa/SjSaroDVy  day  " 

Acts  13:  14.  "Went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath, 
(Saf5(5arGDVy  day." 

Col.  2:  16.  "Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  *  *  in 
respect  of  the  Sabbath,  Ga(5parcov,  days." 

Unless  a  man  is  blinded  by  a  pet  theory,  he  must  see  that 
Col.  2:  16  does  surely  mean  the  weekly  Sabbath,  as  in  all 
the  other  texts  where  the  same  word  occurs. 

4.  The  only  word  ever  used  in  the  Bible  for  the  weekly 
Sabbath  is  the  very  one  Paul  did  use,  (JafSfSaroDv,  Sahhaton. 
So  if  he  had  meant  to  name  that  Sabbath,  what  else  could 
he  have  said  than  just  what  he  did  say,  the  Sabbath  days  ? 
Why,  then,  deny  that  he  means  just  what  he  says  when  he 
could  have  said  nothing  else  if  he  had  meant  the  Sabbath  ? 

5.  The  word  Sabbath  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  60 
times.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  admit  that  in  59  out  of  these 
60  cases  it  means  the  weekly  Sabbath;  but  in  the  60th  cast, 
where  exactly  the  same  word  is  used  both  in  Greek  and 
English,  as  we  have  seen,  they  say  it  must  mean  something 
else!  Isn't  that  remarkable?  Hear  them:  "In  the  New 
Testament  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  is  mentioned  59  times, 
and  those  local  Sabbaths,  which  expired  by  limitation  and 
ceased  at  the  cross,  are  mentioned  once."  Scripture  Refer- 
ences, p.  9.  Strange  that  the  Sabbath  means  the  Sabbath 
59  times  and  the  60th  time  it  don't  !  "Jewish  feasts  are 
often  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  but,  not  one  of  them 


286  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

anywhere  is  called  a  Sabbath  or  credited  with  the  nature  of 
a  Sabbath."     The  Sabbath  for  Man,  p.  544. 

6.  *'The  feast  days  and  new  moons"  of  Col.  2: 16,  include 
all  the  holy  days  of  the  Jews  except  the  weekly  Sabbath; 
hence  there  was  nothing  else  left  to  which  it  could  apply  but 
that  Sabbath.     The  entire  list  is  given  in  Num.  28  and  29. 

7.  But  what  settles  it  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that 
Col.  2: 16,  does  refer  to  the  weekly  Sabbaths  is  the  fact  that 
exactly  the  same  list  of  holy  days  here  given  by  Paul  is 
given  about  a  dozen  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  where  we 
know  it  means  the  seventh  day. 

Turn  to  Num.  28  and  29,  and  you  have  a  detailed  law 
as  to  just  what  offerings  shall  be  made  on  each  day  of  the 
whole  year.  The  first  were  the  daily  offerings  of  "two 
lambs,"  day  by  day,  for  a  continual  burnt  offering.  "The 
one  lamb  shalt  thou  offer  in  the  morning,  and  the  other  lamb 
shalt  thou  offer  at  the  even. "  Verses  3  and  4.  The  second 
were  the  offerings  on  the  sabbath.  "And  on  the  sabbath 
day  two  lambs  of  the  first  year  without  spot,"  verses  9  and 
10.  None  will  deny  that  this  was  the  weekly  sabbath. 
Third,  in  the  very  next  verse  come  the  new  moons.  "And 
in  the  beginning  of  your  months  ye  shall  offer  a  burnt  offer- 
ing unto  the  Lord,"  verses  11-15.  Fourth  comes  the  annual 
feast  days.  "And  in  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month 
is  the  passover  of  the  Lord,"  verse  16.  Then  follows  a  com- 
plete list  of  all  the  annual  feast  days,  closing  with  these 
words,  "These  things  shall  ye  do  unto  the  Lord  in  your  set 
feasts,  "Num  29:  39. 

Here  we  have  the  law  for  the  daily ^  weeTdy^  monthly^  and 
ijearly  offerings;  or,  those  on  each  day,  on  the  weekly  sab- 
baths, on  the  new  moons,  and  on  the  yearly  feast  days. 
Now  read  the  following  texts,  and  notice  how  this  list  of 
daily  offerings,  offerings  on  the  sabbaths,  on  the  new  moons, 
and  on  the  set  feasts,  as  laid  down  in  the  law  of  Moses, 


THE  JEWISH  SABBATH  ABOLISHED.  28T 

is  repeatedly  referred  to  in  almost  exactly  the  words  of 
Col.  2:  16. 

1.  Chron.  23:  30,  31:  ''To  stand  every  morning  to 
thank  and  praise  the  Lord,  and  likewise  at  even;  and  to 
ofler  all  burnt  sacrifices  unto  to  the  Lord  in  the  sabbaths,  in 
the  new  moons,  and  on  the  set  feasts,  by  number,  accord- 
ing to  the  order  commanded  unto  them."  Here  is  a  direct 
reference  to  the  daily  ofierings,  oflerings  on  the  w  eekly  sab- 
baths, new  moons  and  set  feasts,  just  as  ordered  in  Num. 
28  and  29.  Can  any  one  doubt  that  "the  sabbaths"  here 
are  the  weekly  sabbaths,  the  same  as  there?  Certainly 
not. 

2.  Chron.  2:  4:  "Behold,  I  build  an  house  to  the  name 
of  the  Lord  my  God,  to  dedicate  it  to  him,  and  to  burn  be- 
fore him  sweet  incense,  and  for  the  continual  shew  bread, 
and  for  the  burnt  ofierings  morning  and  evening  [daily],  on 
the  sabbaths  [weekly],  and  on  the  new  moons  [monthly], 
and  on  the  solemn  feasts  [yearly]  of  the  Lord. "  Precisely 
the  same  list  again,  and  in  the  same  order,  hence  the  weekly 
sabbaths  are  the  ones  named.  Besides,  it  would  be  absurd 
to  suppose  that  Solomon  would  name  all  the  other  and  minor 
holy  days,  but  say  nothing  about  the  chiefest  of  all  days, 
the  weekly  sabbaths.  Every  candid  man  would  admit  that 
"the  sabbaths"  here  are  the  weekly  sabbaths,  and  so  they  are 
in  all  the  passages  which  follow. 

2.  Chron.  8:  13:  "Even  after  a  certain  rate  every  day 
[daily  again],  offering  according  to  the  commandment  of 
Moses,  on  the  sabbaths  [weekly],  and  on  the  new  moons 
[monthly],  and  on  the  solemn  feasts  [yearly],  three  times  in 
the  year."     Same  list  and  order  as  before. 

2.  Chron.  31:  3:  "The  morning  and  evening  burnt 
ofierings,  and  the  burnt  ofierings  for  the  sabbaths,  and  for 
the  new  moons,  and  for  the  set  feasts,  as  it  is  written  in  the 
law  of  the  Lord."    The  same  list  again,    daily,   weekly, 


288  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

monthly  and  yearly  offerings,  just  in  the  order  they  would 
naturally  come,  and  just  as  given  "in  the  law  of  the  Lord." 
Num.  28  and  29.  But  if  the  sabbaths  are  not  the  weekly 
sabbaths,  then  the  Lord  names  the  daily,  monthly  and  yearly 
offerings,  but  skips  the  weekly  offerings.  Every  thinking 
man  knows  that  such  an  interpretation  is  false.  But  it  is  the 
only  way  the  sabbaths  can  be  saved  from  Paul's  list,  Col.  2: 
16,  for  that  is  the  same  as  all  these.  As  the  object  in  these 
passages  is  to  mention  the  service  of  God  which  must  be 
performed  on  each  of  the  holy  days,  it  would  be  absurd  to 
suppose  that  all  the  other  sacred  days  in  the  whole  year 
would  be  carefully  mentioned  time  and  again,  while  no 
reference  whatever  is  made  to  the  weekly  sabbaths,  the 
most  important  and  the  most  numerous  of  all  the  sacred 
days. 

Neh.  10:  33:  '*For  the  shew  bread,  and  for  the  continual 
meat  offering,  and  for  the  continual  burnt  offering,  of  the 
sabbaths,  of  the  new  moons,  for  the  set  feasts. "  Same  list 
again,  daily,  weekly,  monthly  and  yearly.  Either  the 
weekly  sabbaths  are  meant  here,  or  else  reference  to  the 
worship  of  God  on  the  Sabbath  is  always  studiously  avoided, 
while  all  the  rest  is  carefully  mentioned.  The  evidence  is  too 
plain  to  mistake  which. 

Ezek.  45:  17:  "Offerings  in  the  feasts,  and  in  the  new 
moons,  and  in  the  sabbaths. "  Here  are  named  exactly  the 
same  days  that  Paul  gives  in  Col.  2:  16,  and  in  the  same 
order,  yearly,  monthly,  weekly. 

Hosea  2:  11:  ''I  will  also  cause  all  her  mirth  to  cease, 
her  feast  days,  her  new  moons,  and  her  sabbaths,  and  all  her 
solemn  feasts."  Same  list  of  holy  days  that  we  have  had 
over  and  over,  where  wo  know  that  sabbath  meant  the 
seventh  day  . 

Col.  2:  16:  "Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or 
in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  feast  day,  (Rev.  Version),  or  <d 


THE  JEWISH   SABBATH  ABOLISHED.  289 

the  new  moon,  or  of  the  sabbath  days."  Here,  as  before, 
are  the  yearly,  monthly  and  weekly  holy  days  just  as  laid 
down  in  the  law  where  we  know  the  weekly  sabbaths  are 
meant.  It  is  evident  that  Paul  bad  in  his  mind  those  lists  of 
holy  days  so  often  given  in  the  Old  Testament,  where  the 
sabbath  is  included. 

The  words  "the  sabbath  days*'  would  certainly  embrace 
the  weekly  sabbaths  unless  they  were  especially  named  as  ex- 
cepted. But  no  such  exception  is  made.  Hence  we  must 
apply  the  term  as  it  is  used  in  the  law,  to  the  seventh 
day. 

Hosea  2:  11,  is  a  plain  prophecy  that  all  these  holy 
days  should  cease  just  as  we  know  has  happened  in 
fact;  and  in  Col.  2:  16,  is  proof  that  they  were  nailed  to 
tlie  cross. 

8.      TESTIMONY  OT  OTHEBS  ON  COL.    2:    14-17. 

Btmyan. — On  this  text,  John  Bunyan,  than  whom  no 
man  ever  studied  his  Bible  more  closely,  says:  "Here  also  as 
he  [Paul]  serveth  other  holy  days  he  serveth  the  Sabbath,  he 
gives  a  liberty  to  believers  to  refuse  the  observation  of  it. 
Nor  hath  the  apostle  (since  he  saith,  or  of  the  sabbath),  one 
would  think,  left  any  hole  out  at  which  men's  inventions 
could  get."  Again:  "The  old  seventh-day  Sabbath  is 
aboHshed  and  done  away."  Bunyan's  Complete  Works, 
pages  899,  900. 

Dr.  Scott  says:  "Doubtless,  this  last  related  principally 
to  the  weekly  Sabbath,  which,  as  observed  on  the  seventh 
day,  was  now  become  a  part  of  the  abrogated  Jewish 
law." 

27ie  Pulpit  Commentary  on  this  text  says:  "The  *Sab- 
bath  days'  referred  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath  which  was  always 
observed  on  Saturday. "  '  'If  the  ordinance  of  the  Sabbath  had 
been  in  any  form  of  lasting  obligation  on  the  Christian  church, 


290  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

it  would  have  been  quite  impossible  for  the  apostle  to  have 
used  this  language." 

John  Wesley: — "In  respect  of  a  yearly  feast,  the  new 
moon,  or  the  weekly  Jewish  Sabbath." 

Dr.  Zee,  Methodist: — "The  apostle  refers  to  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath  and  he  gives  them  clearly  to  understand  that 
they  are  not  morally  bound  to  observe  it.  *  *  *  By  a 
'holy  day'  and  the  'new  moon,'  he  included  all  other  feasts 
and  rests  which  might  be  called  Sabbaths,  leaving  nothing 
but  the  seventh  day  Sabbath  to  be  meant  by  the  Sabbath 
days."     Lee's  Theology,  page  375. 

9.  That  upon  which  Seventh-Day  Adventists  rely  to  save 
this  text  from  applying  to  the  sabbath  is  the  asser- 
tion that  there  were  several  yearly  or  annual  sabbath  days, 
and  that  Paul's  language  must  apply  to  these  instead  of  to 
the  weekly  sabbaths.  Thus  Elder  Andrews,  in  his  "History 
of  the  Sabbath,"  says,  "There  were  seven  annual  sabbaths," 
and  then  he  names  all  the  Jewish  feast  days,  as  the  pente- 
cost,  day  of  atonement,  etc.,  and  cites  Lev.  23.  It  is 
true  that  in  our  English  version  the  word  sahhath  is  applied 
to  four  of  these  feast  days.  But  we  turn  tc  the  Greek,  in 
which  Paul  wrote,  and  find  that  the  word  for  "sabbath"  is 
sabbaton.  Is  that  the  term  used  where  the  word  sabbath  is 
applied  to  the  annual  feast  days  ?  No,  indeed,  except  in  just 
barely  one  instance.  The  day  of  atonement  is  called  a  sab- 
bath {sabbaton)  in  the  Greek.  Lev.  23:  32.  "In  the  Old 
Testament  Hebrew  none  of  those  feast  days  are  ever 
termed  a  Sabbath,  save  the  day  of  atonement."  Sabbath 
for  Man,  page  544. 

The  Hebrew  word  for  sabbath  is  shdbhath.  In  only  this  one 
instance  is  it  ever  applied  to  any  of  the  annual  festivals. 
But  the  word  "sabbath"  in  the  English  version,  when  ap- 
plied to  these  annual  feasts,  is  from  the  Greek  term  anapavr 
sis^  and  in  the  Hebrew  from  sA^JJ^zJA^ti.  These  words  should 


THE  JEWISH  SABBATH  ABOLISHED.  291 

not  be  translated  * 'sabbath,"  but  should  be  rendered  '*rest," 
as  they  are  in  the  Revised  Version.  Thus  all  these  texts 
read  in  the  New  Version:  "In  the  seventh  month,  in  the 
first  day  of  the  month,  there  shall  be  a  solemn  rest  unto 
you."  Lev.  23:  24.  "On  the  first  day  shall  be  a  solemn 
rest^  and  on  the  eighth  day  shall  be  a  solemn  rest^''^  verse  39. 
So  also  in  the  English  version  of  the  Hebrew  used  by  the 
Jews  these  words  are  translated  rest^  not  sabbath.  Thus: 
"In  the  seventh  month,  on  the  first  day  of  the  month,  shall 
ye  have  a  ?'^5^,"  not  sabbath,  verse  24.  "On  the  first  day 
shall  be  a  rest^  and  on  the  eighth  day  shall  be  a  ^v^^," 
verse  39. 

Hence,  except  the  weekly  sabbaths,  among  all  the  feast 
days  and  holy  days  of  the  Old  Testament  only  one  single 
day  in  the  whole  year  is  ever  called  a  sabbath.  So  it  is  not 
correct  to  speak  of  "the  annual  sabbaths,"  much  less  to  say 
that  there  were  seven  of  them.  There  was  just  one,  and  no 
more,  and  this  one  was  included  in  the  annual  feast  days. 
Even  Elder  Andrews  confesses  that  '  'the  annual  sabbaths, 
were  part  and  parcel  of  these  feasts  and  could  have  no  exist- 
ence until  after  the  feasts  to  which  they  belonged  had  been 
instituted.  Thus  the  first  and  second  of  these  Sabbaths 
were  the  first  and  seventh  days  of  the  pascal  feast.  The 
third  annual  sabbath  was  identical  with  the  feast  of  pente- 
cost."  History  of  the  Sabbath,  page  86.  By  his  own  con- 
fession the  days  he  calls  annual  sabbaths  were  all  included 
in  those  yearly  feasts  and  could  have  no  existence  separate 
from  them.  Feast  days  (Jieortes)  is  the  term  embracing  all 
those  days,  as  we  have  seen.  Hence  "the  sabbath  days" 
(sahhatOT))  must  apply  only  to  the  weekly  sabbaths.  Or,  to 
say  the  least,  this  term  being  pre-emiently ,  almost  exclusively, 
applied  to  the  weekly  sabbaths,  must  include  them  any  way, 
whether  it  did  any  others  or  not. 

10.     Seventh-Day  Adventists  try  to  make  a  difference  b©- 


292  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

tween  "the  Sabbaths  of  the  Lord,"  Lev.  23:  38;  Ex.  20: 10, 
and  "her  Sabbaths,"  Hosea  2:  llo  They  say  that  "her 
Sabbaths,"  were  the  Jewish  Sabbaths,  yearly  feast  days;  but 
that  the  Lord's  Sabbath  is  never  called  Tier  Sabbaths.  The 
assertion  is  contrary  to  facts. 

Why  were  the  yearly  holy  days  her  days  ?  Did  the  Jews 
appoint  them?  No;  the  Lord  appointed  them  just  as  he 
did  tiie  sabbath,  and  gave  them  to  Israel  to  keep,  just  as  he 
gave  th^m  the  sabbath  to  keep.  Hence,  from  one  point  of 
view  they  are  the  Lord's,  but  from  another  view  they  are 
her  days.  God's,  because  he  commanded  them;  hers,  because 
given  to  them.  *  'I  gave  them  my  sabbaths. "  So  we  read 
of  nearly  every  sacred  institution  of  the  Bible.  In  one  place 
it  is  "the  Lord's"  and  in  the  next  it  is  "hers,"  "yours"  or 
"theirs,"  but  the  same  institution  all  the  time.  Thus  we 
read  of  the  temple:  "Mine  house,"  Is.  56:  7;  "your  house," 
Matt.  23:  38.  Of  the  sacrifices:  "The  sacrifices  of  the 
Lord,"  Lev.  10:  13;  "my  oflering,  and  my  bread  for  my 
sacrifices,"  Num.  28:  2;  "your  burnt  ofierings,  and  your 
sacrifices,  and  your  tithes, "  Deut.  12:6.  Of  the  law:  "My 
law,"  Jer.  6: 19;  "your  law,"  John  10:  34.  Now  notice  par- 
ticularly that  the  feast  days  are  spoken  of  in  exactly  the 
same  manner  that  the  sabbath  is;  that  is,  "my  feasts,"  and 
"her  leasts,"  "my  sabbaths"  and  "her  sabbaths."  Thus: 
"The  Lord's  passover,"  Ex.  12:  11;  "the  feast  of  the  Lord," 
Lev.  23:  4;  "the  sabbaths  of  the  Lord,"  verse  38;  "my 
feasts,"  verse  2;  "my  sabbaths,"  Ex.  31:  13;  "a  feast  unto 
the  Lord,"  Lev.  23:  41;  "the  holy  sabbath  unto  the  Lord," 
Ex.  16:  23;  "Aer  feast  days,  her  new  moons,  and  her  sab 
baths,"  Hosea  2:  11.  These  quotations  aresuflicient  to  show 
the  fallacy  of  trying  to  make  a  distinction  between  "my 
sabbaths"  and  "her  sabbaths."  The  same  argument  would 
prove  that  "my  feasts"  and  "her  feasts,"  "my  sacrifices" 
and  "your  sacrifices,"  "my  house"  and  "your  house,"  etc., 


THE  JEWISH  SABBATH  ABOLISHED.  293 

were  entirely  different.  But  everybody  knows  better. 
These  expressions  apply  to  the  same  thing  from  different 
standpoints;  the  sabbaths  of  the  Lord  as  appointed  by  him; 
her  sabbaths  as  kept  by  them;  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it. 

11.  Paul  represents  these  things  as  ''blotted  out," 
"nailed  to  the  cross."  Col.  2:  14.  It  is  said  that  this  could 
not  apply  to  the  Sabbath  which  was  engraved  in  the  stones 
in  the  decalogue,  as  you  could  not  blot  out  nor  nail  up  this. 
The  answer  is  easy.  To  blot  out  and  to  nail  up  are  only 
used  as  an  illustration.  Anciently  a  document  that  had  been 
cancelled,  or  abolished,  was  rubbed  or  blotted  out,  or  a  nail 
was  driven  through  it,  as  now  a  conductor  punches  a 
ticket  to  show  that  it  has  been  used  up.  As  an  illustration 
it  could  be  applied  to  laws  written  in  any  manner,  no 
matter  what.  Such  objections  are  unworthy  a  candid  man. 
Paul  says  these  things  were  against  us;  but  it  is  said  that 
the  Sabbath  was  not  against  us;  hence  it  cannot  mean  that. 
Answer:  1.  Paul  says  it  was;  that  ought  to  settle  it.  2.  The 
Jewish  Sabbath  was  the  great  sign  of  Judaism.  Ez.  20: 
10-13;  Deut.  5:  15.  As  such,  it  carried  with  it  that  whole 
system  and  so  was  against  Christians. 

12.  It  is  said  that  the  weekly  Sabbath  was  never  asso- 
ciated with  meats,  drinks,  feast  days,  etc.,  as  in  Col.  2:  16. 
This  is  a  great  mistake  as  we  have  already  seen.  It  is 
classed  with  these  a  score  of  times.  See  Lev.  23:  2-6;  Num. 
28:  3-11;  1  Chron.  23:  29-31,  etc. 

13.  But  it  is  argued  that  as  "the  sabbath  days"  of  Col. 
2:  16,  "are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come,"  verse  17,  and  the 
weekly  Sabbath  is  a  memorial  of  creation,  pointing  back  to 
the  beginning,  therefore  they  cannot  be  the  same,  for  the 
sabbath  could  not  point  both  ways.  But  is  not  this  a  mere 
assertion  without  any  proof  ?  How  do  we  know  that  it  can- 
not point  both  ways  ?  The  passover  was  a  memorial  of  their 
deliverance  from  Egypt,   and  always  pointed  back  to  that 


294  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

event.  Ex.  12:  11-17.  Yet  it  was  also  a  shadow  of  Christ 
Col.  2:  16-17.  "Even  Christ  our  passover  is  sacrificed  for 
us,"  1  Cor.  5:7.  So  all  these  annual  feasts  were  types  of 
Christ  in  some  way,  and  yet  all  were  memorials  also  of 
past  events,  as  all  know.  But  who  would  ever  have  thought 
of  this  if  the  apostle  had  not  said  so  ? 

If,  then,  these  feast  days  could  be  both  memorials  and 
types,  pointing  both  ways,  so  can  the  Sabbath.  Paul  says 
plainly  that  the  Sabbath  days  are  a  shadow  of  things  to 
come;  and  one  plain  statement  of  inspiration  is  worth  a 
thousand  of  our  vain  reasonings.  This  is  in  harmony  with 
Paul's  argument  in  Heb.  4:  1-11,  that  the  seventh  day  is  a 
type.  For  forty  years  they  have  tried  to  explain  away  this 
text,  and  to  show  that  it  really  cannot  mean  what  it  says; 
but  there  it  stands  and  mocks  all  their  theories.  The  Sab- 
bath is  a  type,  for  inspiration  says  so. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  before 
the  fall,  but  types  could  not  have  been  instituted  till  after 
the  fall.  How  do  you  know  that  they  could  not  be  ?  Where 
does  the  Bible  say  so  ?  Peter  says  of  Christ:  ''Who  verily 
was  foreordained  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  but 
was  manifested  in  these  last  times  for  you,"  1  Peter  1:  20. 
The  revelator  says,  "The  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world,"  Rev.  13:  8.  If,  then,  Christ  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  was  ordained  to  die,  then  the  Sab- 
bath might  have  been  desisjned  even  before  the  creation  of 
the  earth,  as  a  type  of  Christ. 

Dr.  Watson  says:  "It  is  used  as  an  expressive  type  of 
the  heavenly  and  eternal  rest."  Theol.  Inst.  Vol.  II,  page 
509.  The  Pulpit  Commentary  says:  "The  Sabbath  of  the 
Jews  was  typical."  On  Col.  2:  17.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  says: 
"The  truth  is,  the  Sabbath  is  considered  as  a  type."  On 
Ex.  20:  8.  Even  Elder  Andrews,  Seventh-Day  Adventist, 
says:     "When  the  Creator  gave  existence  to  our  world,  did 


THE  JEWISH  SABBATH  ABOLISHED.  295 

he  not  forsee  the  fall  of  man  ?  And,  foreseeing  that  fall, 
did  he  not  entertain  the  purpose  of  redeeming  man  ?  And 
does  it  not  follow  that  the  purpose  of  redemption  was  en- 
tertained in  that  of  creation  ?"  History  of  the  Sabbath, 
page  151.  Exactly;  and  so  the  Sabbath  as  a  type  of  that 
redemption  might  have  been  given  in  Eden  according  to 
their  own  showing.  So,  on  close  inspection,  every  argu- 
ment of  our  Seventh-Day  brethren  on  Col.  2  fails  them. 

14.  By  a  false  and  ungrammatical  construction  of  the 
relative  pronoun  '^whicK'^  in  Col.  2:  17,  Adventists  try 
to  exclude  the  weekly  Jewish  Sabbath  from  the  text.  They 
make  the  pronoun  which  refer  only  to  ^Hhe  Sabbath  days,^^ 
making  it  read,  "Those  Sabbath  days  which  are  a  shadow." 
This  they  say,  implies  that  there  are  other  Sabbaths  which 
are  not  a  shadow,  that  is  the  seventh  day.  But  the  Greek 
word  for  "Sabbath  days"  is  aa^/Saroov,  Sabbaton^  genitive 
plural,  while  the  word  for  '''which'*''  is  a^  ha^  nominative 
plural,  neuter.  Hence  which  cannot  agree  with  Sabbath 
days,  as  any  scholar  knows.  "Which  are  a  shadow"  relates 
to  the  whole  list  given  in  verse  16,  viz.,  meats,  drinks,  feast 
days,  new  moons  and  Sabbaths.  The  revised  version  ren- 
ders it,  "a  feast  day,  or  a  new  moon,  or  a  Sabbath  day, 
which  are  a  shadow."  Not  simply  the  Sabbath  alone,  but 
all  these  together  were  a  shadow.  Hence  the  phrase,  "which 
are  a  shadow,"  applies  to  each  item  in  verse  16.  Does  Paul, 
then,  mean  to  say  that  only  certain  feast  days,  certain  new 
moons,  and  certain  Sabbaths  were  shadows,  while  there 
were  other  feast  days,  other  new  moons  and  other  Sabbaths 
which  were  not  shadows  and  so  were  excepted  from  his  list  ? 
No,  he  makes  no  exception  whatever,  neither  of  feasts, 
moons,  or  Sabbaths.  All  w^ere  included,  none  were  ex- 
cepted. Hence  as  Paul  included  every  feast  day,  and 
every  new  moon,  so  he  also  included  every  Sabbath  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  that  took  in  the  weekly  Sabbath  as  the 


^96  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

chief  of  all,  to  say  the  least.  So  the  last  peg  on  which  to 
hang  the  Jewish  Sabbath  goes  down. 

Professor  A.  M.  Weston,  President  of  Eureka  College, 
111.,  says  very  truly:  "If  the  Sabbath  does  not  look  to 
Christ  for  its  underlying  principle,  then  it  is  the  one  im- 
portant observance  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  that  fails 
to  do  so."  The  Evolution  of  a  Shadow,  page  16.  We  know 
that  there  was  in  Eden  one  type  of  Christ,  that  was  Adam, 
for  the  Bible  says  so,  Rom.  5: 14.  "Adam  *  -^  *  who 
is  the  Jlgure  of  him  that  was  to  come."  Figure  is  from 
the  Greek  rvnoz,  tupos^  type.  "Who  was  the  type  of  him 
that  was  to  come."  Syriac,  Diaglott,  Sawyer,  Living 
Oracles,  and  Bible  Union  Translations.  Hence  types  were 
instituted  in  Eden.  Therefore  the  Sabbath  cannot  be  ex- 
cepted from  the  types  on  that  ground. 

In  Gal.  4:  10,  11,  Paul  sets  aside  the  keeping  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  and  all  those  holy  days  of  the  law.  "Ye  observe 
days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years.  I  am  afraid  of 
you."  That  this  refers  to  the  holy  daj^s  of  the  old  law  is 
proved  by  his  reference  to  that  law,  both  before  and  after 
this  text.  Thus:  "The  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring 
us  unto  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith.  But 
after  that  faith  is  come  we  are  no  longer  under  a  ichooL 
master."  Gal.  3:  24,  25.  That  law  has  ended  at  the  cross 
as  Paul  said  in  Col.  2:  14-17.  Again:  "Tell  me,  ye  that 
desire  to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye  not  hear  the  law  ?"  Gal 
4:  21.  "Ye  are  not  under  the  law."  Gal.  5:  18.  So, 
then,  he  means  the  holy  days  of  the  law  and  these  included 
the  Sabbath  as  the  chief  of  all.  Look  at  his  list:  Days^ 
(Sabbath  days,  weekly),  months  (new  moons),  times  (yearly 
feasts),  and  years  (Sabbatical  years).  This  is  exactly  the 
list  of  Jewish  holy  times. 

To  the  Romans  Paul  taught  the  same  doctrine:  the  obser* 
Vance  of  the  Jewish  holy  days  was  not  to  be  regarded. 


THE  JEWISH  SABBATH  ABOLISHED.  29i 

*'One  man  estecmeth  one  day  above  another;  another 
esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  per- 
suaded in  his  own  mind."     Kom.  14:  5. 

Dr.  Potts,  Methodlt^t,  says:  "Thiit  the  Sabbath  question 
entered  into  PauFs  reasonings  on  the  occasion  is  evident 
from  Rom.  14:  1-6  "  The  Lord's  Day  Our  Sabbath,  page 
27.  These  were  the  days  enjoined  in  the  law  for  it  is  of  the 
law  that  he  treats  all  through  the  book  of  Romans.  He 
makes  no  exception  of  the  Sabbath  day,  but  says  plainly 
^'^ every  day.'^'^  Only  a  few  verses  before  he  has  quoted  five 
of  the  ten  commandments,  Chap.  13:  9,  showing  that  he 
included  the  days  of  the  decalogue.  It  does  not  avail  to  say 
that  Paul  means  only  the  annual  Sabbaths  because  he  men- 
tions eating  meat  and  herbs.  I  have  already  proved  that 
the  weekly  Sabbath  was  associated  with  these  time  and 
again. 

What  proves  that  Paul  did  intend  to  set  aside  the  Sabbath, 
as  his  words  naturally  mean,  is  the  fact  that  nowhere  does  he 
ever  in  all  his  instructions  to  the  churches  say  one  word  in 
lav  or  of  keeping  the  Sabbath.  Time  and  again  he  enjoins 
every  other  duty,  but  never  a  word  about  keeping  the  Sab- 
bath in  all  his  fourteen  letters.  Most  of  those  to  whom  ke 
wrote  were  Gentiles  who  never  had  kept  the  Sabbath  and 
hence  needed  instructions  in  it  if  they  were  to  keep  it.  But  not 
a  word  does  he  say  to  them  about  it;  though  he  does  com- 
mand them  about  the  first  day  of  the  week.    1  Cor.  16: 1,  2. 

But  it  is  said  that  this  view  of  Puul's  language  abolishes 
all  holy  days  and  leaves  the  church  without  any  rest  day. 
The  answer  is  easy  and  manifest.  Paul  was  treating  of  the 
old  institutions  w^hich  had  been  nailed  to  the  cross.  Col.  2: 
14.  Hence  his  language  has  no  reference  to  the  new  insti- 
tutions of  the  gospel,  of  which  there  might  have  been  a 
dozen  holy  days,  so  far  as  these  texts  are  concerned. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

A  HISTORY  OF  NUMEROUS  EFFORTS  TO  REVIVE  THE  JEW- 
ISH  SABBATH.    ALL  FAIL. 

WHY   NOT  FOUND    OUT  BEFORE  ! 

If  Sabbatarians  are  right  on  the  Sabbath  question,  then 
the  whole  Christian  church  has  broken  the  Sabbath  for  the 
last  1,800  years,  and  has  kept  Sunday,  ''a  popish  institu- 
tion," "the  mark  of  the  beast,"  in  its  stead.  During  these 
long  ages  all  the  holy  men,  martyrs,  reformers,  commenta- 
tors, historians  and  Christian  scholars,  with  all  their  seeking 
of  God,  searching  the  Bible,  and  studying  history,  never 
discovered  this  great  mistake!  Is  it  reasonable  to  believe 
that  the  entire  church,  during  all  its  history,  has  been 
trampling  upon  one  of  God's  most  holy  commandments  ? 
Can  it  be  that  the  wrath  of  God  is  now  to  be  poured  out 
upon  the  church  for  keeping  the  same  day  that  all  others 
have  kept  for  r, 800  years?  Would  God  have  blessed  the 
reformers  and  his  church  as  he  has,  if  Sunday-keeping 
is  such  a  fearful  crime  against  God  as  is  now  claimed  ? 

Now,  just  to  think  that  the  whole  church  of  Christ,  im- 
mediately after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  should  fall  into 
this  fearful  sin  and  error,  and  practice  this  crime  without 
rebuke  during  the  entire  history  of  the  church,  till  just  a 
few  days  before  Jesus  comes,  and  then  only  a  few  find  it 
out  and  change.  According  to  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists, 
Luther,  Calvin,  Knox,  Wesley,  with  all  the  church  of 
Christ  for  hundreds  of  years,  committed  two  fearful  sins 
each  week  of  their  lives;  they  broke  the  holy  Sabbath,  the 
most  important  commandment  in  the  decalogue,  and  kept 

(298) 


SATURDAY-KEEPING  FAILURES.  299 

Sunday,  the  marlt  of  the  beast!  Yet  God  has  let  the  whole 
thing  go  on  without  any  protest,  till  the  last  minute  of  time, 
and  now  everybody  who  does  not  acccept  this  "new  light," 
is  to  be  hopelessiy  damned  for  doing  what  Christians  gen- 
erally have  always  done!  In  all  candor,  this  is  a  pretty  big 
pill  to  swallow. 

But  Sabbatarians  say  that  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
case.  "Our  appeal  is  to  the  Bible  alone.  The  Bible 
plainly  teaches  it,  and  we  will  go  by  that. "  So  they  say, 
and  so  they  believe;  but  the  fact  is,  it  is  only  their  interpre- 
tation, their  explanation,  of  the  Bible  which  makes  it  say  so. 
Did  you  ever  know  a  sect  under  heaven,  even  the  wildest 
and  most  fanatical,  who  were  not  always  on  hand  ready  to 
"prove  it  all  by  the  Bible"  ?  Yes;  they  know  that  they  are 
right  beyond  a  doubt,  "because  the  Bible  just  says  so." 
They  will  argue  you  blind,  and  grow  more  confident  every 
day,  and  always  end  by  saying,  "It  is  true,  not  because  I 
say  so,  but  because  the  Bible  says  so."  Meet  a  Mormon,  and 
he  has  the  Bible  at  his  tongue's  end.  He  "proves  it  all  by 
the  Bible."  So  the  Shaker,  and  the  Swedenborgian,  and 
the  Universalist,  and  the  rest  of  them,  '  'prove  it  all  by  the 
Bible."  How  many  persons  and  sects  have  arisen  at  difier- 
ent  times  with  a  perfect  furor  of  enthusiasm  over  some  new 
idea  besides  "the  old,  old  story  of  Jesus  and  his  love."  No 
matter  what  harm  it  does  to  other  Christians  and  to  the 
gospel,  "the  Bible  teaches  it,  and  that  is  enough.  When 
we  give  this  up  we  will  give  up  the  Bible,  too."  So  they  go 
on  till  time  alone  demolishes  their  theory,  and  then  they  do 
indeed  give  up  the  Bible  and  all,  while  precious  souls  are 
lost. 

KEEPING  THE  JEWISH   SABBATH   A   FAILURE. 

Sabbatarians  began  in  England  in  the  time  of  the  Refor- 
mation, over  three  hundred  years  ago.  They  had  many  able 
men,  ministers  and  writers.     They  published  many  books, 


300  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

discussed  the  subject  widely,  and  made  many  converts. 
Here  they  had  a  fine  field  and  a  fair  start.  How  did  Sab- 
bath-keeping succeed?  What  have  they  accomplished  in 
England  ?  Three  hundred  years  ought  to  be  long  enough 
to  tell  whether  it  is  a  success  or  not.  Let  Elder  Andrews 
tell  the  sad  story:  "In  the  seventeenth  century  eleveo 
churches  of  Sabbatarians  flourished  in  England,  while  many 
scattered  Sabbath-keepers  were  to  be  found  in  various  parts 
of  the  kingdom.  Now  but  three  of  these  churches  are  in 
existence!  And  only  remnants,  even  of  these,  remain!" 
Hist.  Sabbath,  p.  491.  Since  he  wrote  the  above,  two  more 
out  of  the  three,  I  believe,  have  expired,  and  only  one  little 
company  of  less  than  ten  members  survives!  Elder  A.  sor- 
rowfully asks,  ''  To  what  cause  shall  we  assign  this  painful 
fact?  "The  cause  is  evident;  God  is  not  in  it.  It  comes  to 
naught  every  time  it  is  tried.  Three  hundred  years  hence 
the  same  mournful  requiem  will  be  chanted  over  the  grave 
of  Seventh-day  Adventism. 

Now  look  at  the  history  of  the  Sabbatarian  effort  in 
America. 

In  1664,  over  200  years  ago,  the  Seventh-Day  Baptists  be 
gan  teaching  that  doctrine  in  America  at  Newport,  R.  I. 
The  first  church  was  organized  Dec.  23,  1671.  See  * 'Manu- 
al of  the  Seventh-Day  Baptists,"  pages  39,  40.  From  that 
time  on  they  industriously  taught  the  observance  of  the 
seventh  day,  both  in  America  and  other  lands,  even  as  far 
as  China,  by  preaching,  by  tracts,  books  and  periodicals,  till 
the  religious  world  is  familiar  wdth  their  views.  They  were 
numerous  enough  to  organize  a  general  conference  as  early 
as  1802.  See  Hist.  S.  D.  Bap.  Gen.  Conf.,  pages  15,  238,  or 
any  cyclopedia.  They  have  had  academies,  colleges,  and 
universities;  learned  men,  able  writers,  and  zealous  workers. 
What  have  they  accomplished?  Almost  nothing.  They 
now  number  only  about  8,000,  and  are  not  holding  their 


SATURDAY-KEEPING  FAILURES.  301 

own,  but  are  losing  ground  every  decade.  They  can  not 
even  hold  the  increase  of  their  children.  Largely  their 
youth  abandon  Saturday  for  Sunday.  For  convenience 
they  mostly  colonize  together,  and  so  have  little  intiuence 
on  the  world.  To  their  praise  be  it  said  that  they  are  an  ex- 
cellent people,  and  free  from  any  fanatical  or  other  heret- 
ical notions.  Here  again  the  seventh  day  has  had  the  fair- 
est possible  chance  of  success.  Its  advocates  are  intelligent, 
highly  educated,  respected,  and  live  in  this  free  land  and 
age  of  investigation.  Why  has  it  not  succeeded  ?  That  it 
has  not  they  themselves  must  admit.  These  sober,  stubborn 
facts  should  have  weight  with  us.  Sabbatarian  brethren, 
stop  and  weigh  these  things  fairly.  "What  is  the  use  of 
wasting  life  contending  for  what  is  a  practical  failure  ? 

In  1846,  nearly  seventy  years  ago,  Seventh-Day  Advent- 
ists  began  teaching  the  Sabbath.  They  have  practiced  it 
zealously,  devoted  everything  to  it,  poured  out  treasures 
by  the  million,  and  filled  the  land  with  their  literature. 
What  hav^e  they  accomplished  ?  They  number  only  about 
100,000  now.  Have  4,000  workers  in  the  field  and  spend 
$2,000,000  yearly  yet  gain  only  about  4,000  yearly,  or  one 
to  each  worker !  Half  of  these  are  from  other  churches. 
The  system  lacks  vitality  and  gospel  power. 

Contrast  with  the  above  the  work  and  success  of  the  First- 
Day  Baptists.  What  a  grand  work  they  have  done  for 
Christ  and  souls  in  the  last  two  hundred  years.  Instead 
numbering  8,000,  as  the  Seventh-Day  Baptists  do,  they 
number  5,000,000.  As  a  body  they  are  just  as  pious  and 
devoted  as  the  Seventh-Day  Baptists.  Then  look  at  the 
Methodist  and  other  Sunday- keeping  churches,  and  see 
how  God  has  blessed  them  all.  Experience  shows  that 
keeping  the  Jewish  Sabbath  dwarfs,  cripples,  and  unfits  a 
church  for  gospel  work. 


802  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

If,  now,  keeping  Saturday  is  so  highly  pleasing  to  God, 
why  does  he  not  prosper  it  more?  If  Sunday  observance  is 
such  a  sin  in  the  sight  of  God,  why  does  he  so  remarkably 
bless  those  who  persist  in  it? 

LUTHER  AND   THE   SABBATH. 

Even  the  Adventists  acknowledge  the  greatness  of  Luther 
in  piety  and  a  deep  knowledge  of  the  word  of  God.  Mrs. 
White  says  of  him:  "Zealous,  ardent,  and  devoted,  know- 
ing no  fear  but  the  fear  of  God,  and  acknowledging  no  foun- 
dation for  religious  ^aith  but  the  holy  scriptures,"  etc. 
"Angels  of  heaven  x^ere  by  his  side  and  rays  of  light  from 
the  throne  A  God  revealed  the  treasures  of  truth  to  his  un- 
derstanding." Great  Controversy,  pages  94,  97.  Good. 
Now  hear  Luther.  Carlstadt,  a  zealous  and  learned  Sabba- 
tarian, laid  his  arguments  for  the  seventh  day  before  Luther, 
who  examined  them.  Here  is  Luther's  decision  in  his  own 
(vords:  "Indeed,  if  Carlstadt  were  to  write  further  about 
fche  Sabbath,  Sunday  would  have  to  give  way,  and  the  Sab- 
bath— that  is  to  say,  Saturday — must  be  kept  holy;  he 
would  truly  make  us  Jews  in  all  things,  and  we  should  come 
to  be  circumcised;  for  that  is  true  and  cannot  be  denied, 
that  he  who  deems  it  necessary  to  keep  one  law  of  Moses, 
and  keeps  it  as  the  law  of  Moses,  must  deem  all  necessary, 
and  keep  them  all."    Hist.  Sabbath,  p.  457. 

So,  then,  the  "  light"  on  the  Sabbath  question  was  given 
to  Luther,  and  he  rejected  it,  just  as  the  great  body  of 
Christians  do  now.  The  other  leaders  of  the  reformation 
were  likewise  familiar  with  the  arguments  for  the  seventh 
day,  but,  as  Elder  Andrews  confesses,  they  "as  a  body  were 
not  friendly  to  such  views."     Hist.  Sabbath,  p.  460. 

These  facts  show  how  untrue  it  is  to  say  that  people 
have  been  unacquainted  with  this  Sabbath  question  be- 
fore. 


SATUKDAY-KEEPING  FAILURES.  303 

JOHN  MILTON   ON    THE   SABBATH. 

So  the  great  John  Milton,  author  of  **Paradise  Lost,"  has 
thorouo;hly  discussed  the  whole  Sabbath  question,  using  the 
same  arguments  as  we  use  now  to  show  the  abolition  of  the 
Jewish  Sr.bbath.  I  quote  a  few  sentences  from  his  "  Treat- 
ise on  Christian  Doctrine,"  Vol.  1,  Book  2,  Chap.  7.  *'It 
is  evident  from  more  than  one  passage  of  scripture  that  the 
original  Sabbath  is  abrogated."  ''If,  then,  the  command- 
ment of  the  Sabbath  was  given  to  those  alone  whom  God 
brought  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  and  out  of  the  house  of 
bondage,  it  is  evidently  inapplicable  to  us  as  Christians." 
He  argues  the  question  this  way  at  considerable  length. 

RICHARD  BAXTER   ON  THE   SABBATH. 

This  great  divine,  the  author  of  "  Saints'  Rest,"  "  Call  to 
the  Unconverted,"  etc.,  in  1671,  wrote  his  "Divine  Appoint- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Day  '^  against  the  Seventh-Day  advo- 
cates of  his  times.  Giltillan,  says:  "Baxter  (1671)  and 
Bunyan  (1685)  wrote  their  interesting  defences  of  the  Lord's 
day  for  relieving  the  perplexities  with  which  some  good  peo- 
ple in  their  time  were  distressed  in  consequence  of  the  prose- 
lyting zeal  of  Saturday  Sabbathists. "  The  Sabbath,  p.  144. 
So  the  Sabbatarians  over  200  years  ago  were  giving  the  same 
"light"  and  doing  the  same  proselyting  work  as  now.  They 
were  answered  by  such  men  as  Baxter,  Bunyan,  Milton,  etc. 

I  give  a  few  words  from  Baxter:  "It  is  also  confessed, 
that  the  universal  church  from  the  days  of  the  apostles 
down  till  now  have  constantly  kept  holy  the  Lord's  day  in 
the  memory  of  Christ's  resurrection,  and  that  as  by  the  will 
of  Christ  delivered  to  them  by  or  from  the  apostles;  inso- 
much that  I  remember  not  either  any  orthodox  Christian, 
or  heretic,  that  ever  opposed,  questioned,  or  scrupled  it, 
till  of  late  ages."  Part  2,  Chap.  18.  Of  him  even  Mrs. 
White  says:     Baxter,  a  man   "of  talent,   education,   and 


304  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM   KENOUNCED. 

deep  Christian  experience,  stood  up  in  valiant  defense  of  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  Great  Controversy, 
page  175.  Yes:  sucb  men  as  these  stood  up  and  opposed  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  heresy. 

JOHN  BUNYAN. 

Hear  Mrs.  White  on  Bunyan:  "John  Bunyan  breathed 
the  very  atmosphere  of  heaven."  Great  Controversy,  page 
174.  Well,  now  hear  Bunyan:  "As  for  the  seventh  day 
Sabbath,  that,  as  we  see,  is  gone  to  its  grave  with  the  signs 
and  shadows  of  the  Old  Testament;  yea,  and  it  has  such  a 
dash  left  upon  it  by  apostolical  authority,  that  it  is  enough 
to  make  a  Christian  fly  from  it  for  ever.  2  Cor.  3."  "Again 
the  apostle  smites  the  teachers  of  the  law  upon  the  mouth, 
saying,  'they  understand  neither  what  they  say  nor  whereof 
they  affirm.'"     Complete  Works,  page  915. 

If  ever  a  man  this  side  the  apostles  lived  near  to  God, 
drank  into  his  spirit,  and  knew  the  true  intent  of  the  Bible, 
that  man  was  Bunyan,  author  of  the  immortal  work,  Pil- 
grim's Progress.  He  met  these  Sabbatarians  and  their  work 
in  his  day.  He  studied  the  subject  fully  and  wrote  a  book 
against  them  from  which  I  have  quoted. 

He  regarded  them  just  as  they  are  regarded  now,  as 
legalists,  blind  zealots,  and  disturbers  of  the  church. 

So  all  this  talk  that  the  church  did  not  have  the  light 
on  the  Sabbath  question  till  Adventists  arose  to  give  it  is 
contrary  to  facts  as  the  above  proves.  It  is  simply  the 
old  arguments  of  200  years  ago  rehashed. 


CHAPTER  XVIL 

THE  LAW. 

The  foundation  of  the  Sabbatarian  error,  I  believe,  is  the 
ilea  that  *>the  law,"  in  all  the  strictness  of  the  old  letter,  is 
binding  on  Christians.  Hence,  their  constant  theme  is  the 
kw,  law,  law.  They  preach  it  ten  times  as  much  as  they 
prvjach  Christ.  Unfortunately,  a  false  theory  of  the  law 
taught  by  some  other  churches  has  led  them  into  this  sad 
error.  For  twenty-eight  years  I  was  held  in  that  *  ^bond- 
age." Now  that  I  have  found  my  way  out,  if  I  can  help 
otherfe^  I  shall  rejoice. 

The  following  simple  facts  with  regard  to  the  law  helped 
me  out  of  Adventism  and  I  have  never  known  anyone 
to  get  out  of  it  any  other  way.  I  believe  it  to  be  the  correct 
answer  to  the  Saturday  Sabbath  error.  I  write  for  candid 
readers.  They  will  examine  my  arguments  fairly  and  allow 
others  to  do  the  same,  even  if  they  should  not  agree  fully 
with  every  position.  As  a  result  of  the  present  agitation  of 
the  Sabbath  question,  we  ought  to  expect  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  whole  subject  than  heretofore.  Forty  years 
of  investigation  and  discussion  of  the  question  have  firmly 
settled  me  on  the  following  propositions.  They  are  in 
harmony  with  the  best  men  and  theologians  of  this  and  past 
ages;  hence  nothing  original  on  my  part 

ANTINOMIANISM. 

Antinomiana^  from  anti^  against  and  nomos^  law,  against 
law,  is  a  term  applied  to  those  who  maintain  that  Christians 
pTe  under  no  obligation  to  keep  the  law  of  God  or  to  do  any 

(305) 


306  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  RENOUNCED. 

good  works.  If  they  commit  any  kind  of  sin  it  will  not 
hinder  their  salvation  at  all  if  they  only  believe  in  Jesus. 
Salvation  is  wholly  of  faith  without  any  regard  to  a  man's 
deeds.  See  any  cyclopedia.  This  is  an  abominable  doc- 
trine, subversive  of  the  gospel;  yet  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
brand  all  as  Antinomians  who  do  not  agree  with  them  as  to 
what  is  the  law  of  God.  I  am  as  much  opposed  to  Antino- 
mianism  as  they.  I  believe  in  strict  obedience  to  law,  in 
keeping  the  commandments  of  God,  and  in  the  necessity  of 
good  works,  as  strongly  as  they  do.  Luther  vehemently 
opposed  Antinomianism  and  yet  taught  the  abolition  of  the 
Mosaic  law.  It  is  unfair  and  unjust  for  Adventists  to  call 
people  Antinomians  who  abhor  that  doctrine.  We  plead  for 
a  pure  life,  good  works  and  obedience  to  God,  as  necessary 
to  salvation.  Hence  it  is  a  falsehood  and  a  slander  to  repre- 
sent us  as  Antinomians.  Men  who  are  conscious  of  being 
in  the  right  can  afford  to  state  the  position  of  their  oppo- 
nents fairly.  Bunyan,  Judson,  and  a  host  of  such  men  hav^ 
repudiated  the  Sabbatarian  idea  of  the  law,  and  yet  have 
been  holy  men.     I  am  not  afraid  to  stand  with  them. 

Even  Elder  Waggoner  says:  "As  to  whether  the  Saviour 
abolished  the  ten  commandments  and  wath  them  the  Sab- 
bath, is  a  theological  question;  it  is  only  a  matter  of  Scrip- 
ture  interpretation."  Replies  to  Elder  Canright,  page  164. 
Very  well;  then  men  may  differ  on  this  question  and  still  be 
honest  Christians.  I  will  now  lay  down  a  few  propositions 
concerning  the  law  which  seem  to  me  so  plidn  and  welJ 
supported  by  the  Bible,  that  all  must  agree  with  them. 

PROPOSITION   1.       "the  law"   EMBRACES  THE  WHOLE  MOSAIC 
LAW,    MORAL,     CIVIL  AND    CEREMONIAL. 

The  term,  "the  law,''  when  used  with  the  definite  article 
and  without  qualifying  words,  refers  '  'in  nine  cases  out  of 
ten,   to  the  Mosaic  law,  or  to  the  Pentateuch."    Smith's 


THE  LAW.  307 

Bible  Dictionary,  article  Law.  Largely  the  Adventists 
use  the  term,  '  'the  law, "  for  the  ten  commandments  only. 
They  hang  up  a  chart  of  the  decalogue  and  constantly  point 
to  it  as  "the  law,"  Matt.  5:  17;  ''the  law  of  the  Lord,"  Ps. 
19:  7;  "the  law  of  God,"  Rom.  7:  22.  This  is  their  funda- 
mental error  on  the  law.  I  affirm  that  "the  law"  included 
the  whole  system  of  law  given  to  the  Jews  at  Sinai,  em- 
bracing all  those  requirements,  whether  moral,  civil  or  cere- 
monial, decalogue  and  all.  Look  at  the  term  "law,"  in  a 
concordance,  or  in  any  Bible  lexicon,  dictionary  or  cyclope- 
dia. "The  law"  commonly  included  the  whole  of  the  five 
books  of  Moses.  Even  Elder  Butler  is  compelled  to  make 
this  confession:  "The  term,  'the  law,'  among  the  Jews 
generally  included  the  five  books  of  Moses,  thus  including 
the  whole  system,  moral,  ritual,  typical  and  civil."  Law  in 
Galatians,  page  70.  That  is  the  truth  exactly.  Dr.  John 
Kitto,  in  his  Cyclopedia  of  Religious  Literature,  article 
Law,  says:  "If,  however,  the  word  law  alone  is  used  it  is 
almost  invariably  equivalent  to  the  law  of  Moses."  "The 
law  is  especially  embodied  in  the  last  four  books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. " 

Now  bear  in  mind  this  one  simple  fact,  wherever  }'ou  find 
the  term  "the  law,"  and  you  will  have  no  trouble  with  Sab- 
batarian arguments  on  '  'the  law. " 

Take  a  few  examples  of  the  use  of  the  term  "the  law." 
1  Cor.  14:  34.  Women  "are  commanded  to  be  under  obe- 
dience, as  also  saith  the  law. "  Where  does  the  law  say  this  ? 
Gen.  3:  KG.  So  Genesis  is  in  the  law.  Again:  "The  law 
had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  covet."  Rom.  7:  7.  Where? 
Ex.  20: 17.  So  Exodus  is  in  the  law.  Once  more:  "Master, 
which  is  the  great  commandment  in  the  law?"  Matt.  22: 
36.  Jesus  then  makes  two  quotations  from  the  law;  first, 
*  'Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  with  all  thy  heart. "  This  is  taken 
from  Deut.  6:  5.     So  Deuteronomy  is  in  the  law.     Second, 


308  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

"Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  This  is  from 
Lev.  19:  18.  So  Leviticus  is  a  part  of  the  law.  And  this: 
"Have  ye  not  read  in  the  law,  how  that  on  the  Sabbath  days 
the  priests  in  the  temple  profane  the  Sabbath,  and  are  blame- 
less?" Matt.  12:  5.  It  is  from  Num.  28:  9.  These  then, 
embrace  all  the  five  books  of  Moses  as  ^Hhe  law^  Observe 
a  little  where  the  law  is  spoken  of  and  you  will  soon  see  that 
it  refers  indiscriminately  to  each  and  all  of  the  books  of 
Moses  as  * 'the  law."  Of  course  any  verse  in  any  of  these 
books  is  quoted  as  "the  law,"  because  it  is  a  part  of  the  law. 
So  the  ten  commandments  are  quoted  as  the  law  because 
they  are  a  part  of  the  law. 

Again,  "the  law"  embraces  all  parts  of  the  law,  moral, 
civil  or  ceremonial.  Thus  the  ceremonial  precepts:  "The 
parents  brought  in  the  child  Jesus  to  do  for  him  after  the 
custom  of  the  law."  Luke  2:  27.  That  is,  to  offer  a  sacri- 
fice. Verse  24.  Moral  precepts:  "The  law  is  not  made  for 
a  righteous  man,  but  for  the  lawless  and  disobedient,  for  the 
ungodly  and  for  sinners,  for  unholy  and  profane,  for  mur- 
derers." 1  Tim.  1:  9.  This  is  the  decalogue.  Civil  pre- 
cepts: "Commandest  me  to  be  smitten  contrary  to  the  law  ?" 
Acts  23:  3.  Notice  that  every  time  it  is  simply  the  law. 
"Gamaliel,  a  doctor  of  the  law."  Acts  6:  34.  Of  what  law  ? 
Was  he  simply  a  doctor  of  some  part  of  the  law,  as  the 
moral,  or  civil,  or  ceremonial  precepts  ?  Every  intelligent 
man  knows  that  "the  law,"  of  which  he  was  doctor  or  teacher, 
was  the  whole  Pentateuch,  decalogue  included.  The  law, 
then,  is  the  whole  Jewish  law,  in  all  its  parts.  This  one 
point,  clearly  settled,  destroys  nine-tenths  of  all  the  Seventh- 
Day  Adventist  argument  for  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 

THE    TWO   LAWS. 

Proposition  2.  There  was  no  such  thing  as  two  separate 
la/ws  given  to  the  Jews,     To  sustain  their  doctrine  Sab- 


THE  LAW-  309 

batarians  have  invented  a  theory  of  two    laws    given   at 
Sinai;  one  the  moral  law,  the  other  the  ceremonial. 

Adventists  attach  the  utmost  importance  to  their  theory 
of  two  laws  as  well  they  may;  for  if  this  is  wrong  their  cause 
is  lost.  Elder  U.  Smith  says:  ''No  question,  therefore, 
more  vital  to  the  interest  of  Sabbath-keepers  can  be  pro- 
posed." Synopsis  of  Present  Truth,  page  258.  But  that 
they  are  wrong  on  this  vital  question  is  very  easily 
shown. 

1.  ^'' Moral  Za?/j,"  ^'-ceremonial  law.'''^  Adventists  use 
these  tw^o  terms  as  freely  as  though  the  Bible  was  full  of 
them;  yet,  strange  to  say,  the  scriptures  make  no  such  dis- 
tinctions, never  speak  of  one  law  as  "moraF'  and  of  another 
as  ''ceremonial."  Adventists  severely  criticise  those  who 
happen  to  use  an  unscriptural  word  or  phrase;  yet  they 
themselves  do  the  very  thing  commonly,  as  in  this  case.  It 
would  be  amusing  to  hear  one  of  them  try  to  preach  on  the 
"two  laws"  and  confine  himself  to  Bible  language!  He  could 
not  possibly  do  it.  If  there  were  two  distinct  laws  given  to 
Israel,  so  opposite  in  their  nature,  it  is  strange  that  there  is 
no  record  of  it,  no  reference  to  it  in  the  Bible.  If  one  was 
abolished  and  the  other  was  not,  strange  that  Paul  should 
not  make  the  distinction  when  he  has  so  much  to  say  about 
the  law.  Why  did  he  not  say,  "we  establish  the  moral  law"  ? 
or,  "the  ceremonial  law  was  our  schoolmaster"  ?  No,  he  just 
says  '  'the  law"  and  leaves  it  there.  He  seems  not  to  have 
been  quite  as  clear  on  that  point  as  Adventists  are!  On  this 
point  Kitto's  Cyclopedia  of  Biblical  Literature,  Article  Law, 
says:  "Neither  Christ  nor  the  apostles  ever  distinguished 
between  the  moral,  the  ceremonial,  and  the  civil  law,  when 
they  speak  of  its  establishment  or  its  abolition." 

2.  Tko  two  lawG  contrasted.  Adventists  have  drawn  up 
a  long  hst  of  things  which  they  claim  are  true  of  the 
"moral"  law  and  an  opposite  list  which  can  apply   only 


310  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

to  the  * 'ceremonial"  law.  These  two  they  contrast  and 
make  out  two  laws.  Thus  Elder  Smith:  "Moral  law:" — 
**Was  spoken  from  Sinai  by  the  voice  of  God  and  twice 
written  upon  tables  of  stone  by  his  own  finger."  *'Was 
deposited  in  the  golden  ark."  "Related  only  to  moral 
duties."  Synopsis  of  Present  Truth,  page  266.  Of 
course  this  was  just  the  ten  commandments,  nothing  more, 
nothing  less.  So  here  we  have  their  "moral  law."  Now 
here  is  the  other  one:  "The  ceremonial  law:" — "Was  com- 
municated to  Moses  privately  and  was  by  Moses  written 
with  a  pen  in  a  book.  Deut.  31:  9."  *'Was  put  into  a 
receptacle  by  the  side  of  the  ark.  Deut.  31:  26."  "Was 
wholly  ceremonial."     Same  page. 

Hence  everything  not  found  in  the  decalogue  belongs  to 
the  ceremonial  law  and  everything  Moses  himself  wrote  in 
the  book  of  the  law  placed  in  the  side  of  the  ark  is  "wholly 
ceremonial."  Deut.  31:  26,  reads:  "Take  this  book  of  the 
law  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark."  The  decalogue  was 
in  the  ark,  the  book  of  the  law  was  by  the  side  of  the  ark. 
We  enquire,  then,  how  much  "the  book  of  the  law"  con- 
tained. The  answer  is  easy:  it  contained  all  the  five  books 
of  Moses,  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and 
Deuteronomy.  Thus  2  Kings  14:  6,  says  it  "is  written  in 
the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,"  and  then  quotes  Deut  24: 
16,  as  that  book  of  the  law.  2  Chron.  35:  12,  says:  "It  is 
written  in  the  book  of  Moses,"  and  refers  to  Lev.  3:  3.  Ezra 
6:  18,  says:  "It  is  written  in  the  book  of  Moses,"  and 
refers  to  Num.  3:  6.  Joshua  8:  31  quotes  Ex.  20:  25,  as 
that  which  *'is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law."  1  Cor.  14: 
34  refers  to  Gen.  3:  16,  as  *'the  law."  Dr.  Scott  on  Deut. 
31:  26,  says:  "This  [book]  appears  to  have  been  a  correct 
and  authentic  copy  of  the  five  books  of  Moses." 

So  what  they  call  the  ceremonial  law  contains  scores  of 
precepts  as  purely  moral  as  any  in  the  decalogue.     Read 


THE  LAW.  311 

these:  "Thou  shalt  not  vex  a  stranger."  "Ye  shall  not 
afflict  any  widow  or  fatherless  child."  Ex.  22:  21,  22. 
"Thou  shalt  not  follow  a  multitude  to  do  evil."  Ex.  23: 
2.  "Ye  shall  be  holy."  "Thou  shalt  not  go  up  and  down  as 
a  tale  bearer  among  thy  people."  "Thou  shalt  not  avenge, 
nor  bear  any  grudge  against  the  children  of  thy  people,  but 
thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  Lev.  19:  2, 16,18. 
"Thou  shalt  not  respect  persons."  "Thou  shalt  be  perfect." 
Deut.  16:  19,  18,  13.  Are  these  precepts,  and  scores  like 
them,  to  be  classed  as  ceremonial  because  God  did  not  write 
them  on  a  stone  but  gave  them  to  Moses  to  write  in  a 
book?  Surely  not.  Then  the  nature  of  a  2^recept  was  not 
determined  by  the  way  it  was  given.  God  gave  them  all 
at  different  times  as  it  pleased  him. 

As  we  have  seen,  "the  law"  embraces  the  "whole  law." 
Gal.  5:  3.  Of  course,  in  that  law,  some  precepts  refer  to 
moral  duties,  other  to  civil,  and  others  to  ceremonial,  but  all 
are  only  different  parts  of  the  same  law,  called,  as  a  whole, 
"the  law."  Thus  Jesus  quotes  from  Lev.  19,  as  "the  law." 
See  Matt.  22:  36-40.  Now  read  the  whole  chapter.  Lev.  19, 
and  you  find  moral,  civil  and  ceremonial  precepts  all  mingled 
together,  and  often  in  the  same  verse.  Adventists,  to  sus- 
tain their  theorj-,  have  to  go  through  this  chapter,  as  they 
do  through  the  w^hole  Bible,  and  cut  and  carve,  and  split 
hairs,  and  label  one  sentence  "the  moral  law,"  another  "the 
ceremonial  law,"  etc.  This  is  what  is  properly  termed  "the 
scrapping  system. "  It  does  great  violence  to  the  Scriptures, 
wresting  them  out  of  their  evident  meaning. 

In  no  place  can  they  find  their  ceremonial  law  given  by 
itself.  The}^  have  to  pick  it  out  here  and  there  in  scraps. 
The  "book  of  the  law,"  which  was  placed  in  the  side  of  the 
ark,  Deut.  31:  24-26,  is  pointed  to  as  the  ceremonial  law 
But  this  "book of  the  law,"  as  we  see,  embraced  the  whole 
five  books  of  Moses. 


312       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

It  contains  all  of  the  ten  commandments  word  for  word 
twice  repeated.  Ex.  20  and  Deut.  5.  Elder  G.  I.  Butler  him- 
self makes  this  confession:  "The  *book  of  the  law,'  which 
was  placed  in  the  side  of  the  ark,  or  at  the  side  of  it,  con- 
tained both  the  moral  and  ceremonial  laws. "  Law  in  Gala- 
tians,  p.  39.  That  drops  the  bottom  out  of  the  theory  that 
the  moral  law  was  "  in  the  ark,  and  the  ceremonial  law  in 
the  side  of  the  ark,"  as  they  usually  claim.  So,  on  close 
examination,  every  text  on  which  they  rely  for  two  laws  will 
fail  them.  That  the  "book  of  the  law"  did  contain  moral 
precepts  is  settled  by  Gal.  3:  10.  "It  is  written,  cursed  is 
every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  which  are  written 
in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them. "  Where  in  the  book  of 
the  law  is  this  written?  In  Deut.  27:  26.  Turning  there 
we  have  a  curse  against  images,  verse  15,  disobedience  to 
parents,  verse  16,  adultery,  verse  20;  murder,  verse  24;  bri- 
bery, verse  25;  then  comes  the  verse  quoted  as  "the  book  of 
the  law. "  So  if  the  decalogue  contains  moral  law,  then  the 
book  did  too.  This  shows  the  utter  fallacy  of  their  theory 
of  two  laws. 

The  following  passage  aione  overturns  the  two  law  theory 
of  Adventists:  "Master,  which  is  the  great  commandment 
in  the  law?  Jesus  said  unto  him,  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with 
all  thy  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment. 
And  the  second  is  like  unto  it:  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments  hang  all  the 
law  and  the  prophets."     Matt.  22:  36-40. 

1.  These  two  great  commandments  were  "  in  the  law." 
2.  But  neither  of  them  is  found  in  the  decalogue.  3.  Both 
of  them  are  in  what  Adventists  call  the  ceremonial  law.  4. 
Neither  of  them  was  spoken  by  God,  nor  written  by  him, 
nor  engraved  on  stones,  nor  put  into  the  ark.  Both  were 
given  by  God  to  Moses  privately  and  he  wrote  them  with  a 


THE  LAW.  313 

pen  in  the  book  of  the  law  which  was  placed  in  the  side  of 
the  ark.  And  yet  these  two  precepts  are  the  greatest  of  all. 
Jesus  said  of  the  first  one  that  it  is  ''the  first  of  all  the  com- 
mandments." Of  the  two  he  said,  "There  is  none  other 
commandments  greater  than  these."  Mark  12:  29,  31.  And 
on  these  two  hang  ail  the  law.  So,  then,  the  greatest  com- 
mandment are  in  the  book  of  the  law,  not  on  the  tables  of 
stone.  How  utterly  this  demolishes  their  two  law  argument. 
It  shows  that  the  mere  fact  that  the  ten  commandments  were 
spoken  by  God,  written  on  stone,  and  placed  in  the  ark, 
is  no  proof  that  they  were  superior  to  those  given  through 
Moses  in  the  book  of  the  law. 

We  will  examine  a  few  more  of  their  contrasts  of  the  two 
Jaws  as  they  arrange  them.     Thus: 

"1.  Moral:  Existed  in  Eden  before  the  fall.  Ceremonial: 
Was  given  after  the  fall. 

2.  Moral:  Was  perfect.  Ps.  19:  7.  Ceremonial:  Made 
nothing  perfect.     Heb.  7:19. 

3.  Moral:  Contains  the  whole  duty  of  man.  Eccl.  12:13. 
Ceremonial 0  'Stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers 
washings,  and  carnal  ordinances.'    Heb.  9:  10." 

1  Where  do  they  read  that  the  decalogue  was  given  in 
Eden?  Nowhere.  This  they  assume  not  only  without  proof, 
but  against  the  plain  record  of  Ex.  19  and  20  that  it  was 
given  at  Sinai.     So  their  very  first  comparison  is  a  failure. 

2.  The  law  is  perfect,  Ps.  19:  7,  and  again,  the  law  made 
nothing  perfect.  Heb.  7:  19.  This  they  regard  as  one  of 
their  clearest  proofs  of  the  two  laws.  But  where  is  the 
proof  ?  Does  it  follow  that  if  the  law  is  perfect  it  will  or 
can  make  sinners  perfect  ?  If  it  could,  then,  as  Paul  says, 
"righteousness  should  be  by  the  law,"  Gal.  3:  21,  and 
"  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain."  Gal.  2:  21.  The  law  could 
be  perfect  and  yet  fail  to  make  anybody  perfect.  So  there 
is  no  proof  of  two  laws  here  after  all. 


314  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

3.  Eccl.  12:  13  is  quoted  as  referring  to  the  ten  com^ 
mandments  alone  and  then  it  is  asserted  that  these  contain 
every  duty  of  man.  Both  statements  are  fallacious.  There 
are  scores  of  duties  we  owe  to  God  and  men  not  even 
hinted  at  in  the  decalogue.  Then  there  is  not  a  particle  of 
evidence  that  Eccl.  12:  13  refers  alone  to  the  decalogue.  It 
manifestly  embraces  all  God's  commandments  on  all  subjects. 
Look  at  the  second  quotation,  Heb.  9: 10.  It  does  not  refer 
to  any  law  whatever  but  is  speaking  of  the  service  of  the 
priests  in  the  temple,  which  service  ' '  stood  only  in  meats, 
drinks,"  etc.  Read  it.  Thus  their  '^  two  laws "  are 
made  out:  1.  By  pure  assumptions.  2.  By  misapplications 
of  scripture.  3.  By  detached  phrases  here  and  there  taken 
out  of  their  proper  connection.  So  I  could  go  through 
their  whole  list  and  show  that  it  proves  no  such  contrast  as 
they  claim. 

But  they  assert  that  such  opposite  things  are  said  of  "the 
law,"  that  it  cannot  be  the  same  law  all  the  time.  This 
method  of  proving  two  laws  by  contrasting  particular 
expressions  about  the  law  when  spoken  of  from  different 
standpoints,  would  make  bad  work  with  the  Bible  if  urged 
on  other  subjects.  Paul  said  he  was  ''a  Jew,"  Acts  21:  39, 
and  again  that  he  was  *'a  Roman,"  Acts  22:  25;  two  Pauls. 
So  Christ  is  ''a  Lion  "  and  "  a  Lamb,"  Rev.  5:  5,  6.  "  The 
everlasting  Father, "Jsa.  9:  6,  and  born  of  awoman,Luke,2:T; 
Prince  of  Life,  Acts,  3:  15,  yet  died  through  weakness,  2 
Cor.  13:  4;  a  child,  Isa.  9:  6  ;  and  yet  God,  Heb.  1:  1-8— 
two  Christs.  It  would  be  much  harder  to  reconcile  the  ap- 
parently opposite  things  said  of  Christ,  than  it  would  be 
the  different  things  said  about  the  law.  There  were 
different  sides  to  Christ's  nature,  yet  he  was  but  one  person. 
So  there  were  different  sides  to  the  law,  but  it  was  only  one 
law  for  all  that.  Viewed  in  the  light  of  its  ultimate  design, 
viz.:  to  prepare  the  way  for  Christ,  Rom.  10:  4;  Gal.  3;  23- 


THE  LAW.  316 

25,  in  its  spirit,  Rom.  7:  6;  in  its  righteousness,  Rom.  8:  3, 
4;  it  was  ^'holy  and  just  and  good,"  Rom.  7:  12.  But  viewed 
from  the  side  of  its  mere  letter,  Rom.  2:29;  7:6 ;  2  Cor.  3:6,7; 
its  numerous  rites,  ceremonies,  penalties  and  rigorous  exact- 
ions, it  was  *'  the  ministration  of  death,"  2  Cor.  3:  7;  and  a 
"yoke  of  bondage,"  Gal.  5:  1-3;  Acts  15:  1-10.  This  is  the 
true  explanation  of  their  ''two  laws." 

Further,  it  is  not  true  that  there  was  nothing  ceremonial 
in  the  decaloojue.  The  weekly  Sabbath  was  the  chief  cere- 
monial  of  all  the  Jewish  worship.  See  this  proved  in  the 
first  part  of  chapter  nine.  Also  see  chapter  eighteen  on  the 
decalogue.  In  Chapter  XXI  I  have  examined  every  text 
they  use  on  the  two  laws. 

Proposition  3.  The  ten  commandments  alone  a/re  never 
called  ^Hhe  law  of  the  Lord''^  nor  the  ''Haw  of  God^  Sab- 
batarians constantly  use  these  two  terms,  applying  them  to 
the  decalogue  alone.  With  them  'Hhe  law  of  God"  and  *'the 
law  of  the  Lord"  is  just  the  decalogue  and  nothing  more. 
They  are  the  only  ones  who  keep  God's  law ,  as  all  others 
break  the  Sabbath,  the  seventh  day.  But  now  notice  this  fact 
which  I  know  to  be  the  truth,  after  a  most  thorough  exam- 
ination. The  word  law  occurs  in  the  Bible  over  400  times, 
yet  in  not  one  single  instance  is  the  decalogue  as  a  whole 
and  alone  called  "the  law."  It  is  never  in  a  single  instance 
called  'Hhe  law  of  the  Lord,"  or  ''the  law  of  God."  Of 
course  the  ten  commandments  are  a  part  of  the  law  of  God, 
but  only  a  part,  not  the  whole.  Examine  a  few  texts:  Luke 
2:  22.  "The  days  of  her  purification  according  to  the  law 
of  Moses;"  verse  23,  "It  is  written  in  the  law  of  the  Lord, 
every  male  that  openeth  the  womb;"  verse  24,  It  is  "said  in 
the  law  of  the  Lord,  a  pair  of  turtle  doves;"  verse  27,  "To 
do  for  him  after  the  custom  of  the  law."  Here  "the  law," 
"the  law  of  the  Lord,"  and  "the  law  of  Moses,"  all  mean 
the  same  thing,  viz:  the  law  touching  the  birth  of  a  sod. 


316  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI^f  RENOUNCED. 

Again,  sacrifices,  offerings,  Sabbaths,  new  moons  and  feast* 
are  all  required  "in  the  law  of  the  Lord."  Thus:  *'He 
appointed  also  the  king's  portion  of  his  substance  for  the 
burnt  offerings,  to-wit,  for  the  morning  and  evening  burnt 
offerings,  and  the  burnt  offerings  for  the  Sabbaths,  and  for 
the  new  moons  and  for  the  set  feasts,  as  it  is  written  in  the 
laio  of  the  Lord.''''  2  Chron.  31:  3.  Scores  of  texts  like 
these  could  be  quoted,  showing  that  "the  law  of  the  Lord" 
includes  sacrifices,  circumcision,  feast  days  and  all  the  Jew- 
ish law.  So  "the  law  of  God"  is  not  simply  the  decalogue, 
but  the  whole  law  of  Moses.  Read  Neh.  8:  1,  2,  3,  7,  8, 
14,  18.  "The  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,"  "the  law,"  "the 
book  of  the  law,"  "they  read  in  the  book  of  the  law  of 
God,"  "the  law  which  the  Lord  commanded  by  Moses," 
"the  book  of  the  law  of  God."  The  law  of  God,  then,  in- 
cludes the  whole  law  of  Moses. 

No  Sabbatarian,  therefore,  keeps  "the  law,"  "the  law  of 
God,"  or  "the  law  of  the  Lord,"  for  if  he  did  he  would 
offer  sacrifices,  be  circumcised,  and  live  exactly  as  the  Jews 
did.  So  all  their  talk  about  "keeping  the  law"  amounts  to 
nothing,  for  none  of  them  do  it.  Moreover  in  their  attempt 
to  keep  a  part  of  that  law  they  thereby  bring  themselves  un- 
der obligation  to  "keep  the  whole  law,"  as  Paul  argues  in 
Gal.  5:  3.  But  as  none  of  them  keep  the  whole  law,  they 
bring  upon  themselves  the  curse  of  the  law,  by  constantly 
violating  one  part  while  attempting  to  keep  another.  This 
is  the  very  point  which  Paul  made  against  Judaizing  legal- 
ists of  his  dayo  "For  as  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the 
law  are  under  the  curse:  For  it  is  written,  cursed  is  every 
one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  which  are  written  in  the 
book  of  the  law  to  them."  Gal.  3:  10.  That  is,  the  person 
who  keeps  one  precept  of  the  law  just  because  the  law  says 
so,  thereby  acknowledges  that  the  law  is  binding  on  him. 
Then  if  he  neglects  some  other  part  of  the  law,  he  thereby 


THE  LAW.  317 

becomes  a  transgressor  of  the  very  law  he  professes  to  keep. 
This  is  exactly  what  Sabbatarians  do.  They  keep  the  Sab- 
bath because  the  law  says  so  and  thereby  become  "debtors  to 
do  the  whole  law."  GaL  5:  3.  Then  they  neglect  many 
things  in  the  same  law  and  so  are  mider  the  condemna- 
tion of  the  law.  Gal.  3:  10.  But  Christians  do  this 
or  that,  not  because  the  IoajO  says  so,  but  because  so  says  the 
New  Testament. 

Proposition  4.  ''The  law^''  was  given  by  Moses  and  the 
^  ^''Law  of  Moses''^  includes  the  decalogue.  Not  that  Moses 
was  the  author  of  it,  but  it  was  through  him  God  gave 
it  to  Israel.  This  is  stated  so  distinctly  and  so  many  times 
that  it  is  useless  to  deny  it.  Thus:  "For  the  law  was  given 
by  Moses,"  John  1: 17.  "Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law  ?" 
John  7:  19.  "The  law  which  the  Lord  had  commanded  by 
Moses,"  Neh.  8:  14.  "God's  law  which  w^as  given  by 
Moses,"  Neh.  10:  29.  This  includes  the  decalogue.  "Moses 
said.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother,"  Mark  7:  10.  This 
is  the  fifth  commandment.  Again:  "Did  not  Moses  give 
you  the  law  and  yet  none  of  you  keepeth  the  law  ?  Why 
go  ye  about  to  kill  me  ?"  John  7:  17.  The  law  against  kill- 
ing is  here  called  the  law  of  Moses. 

In  Heb.  10:  28,  it  is  said  that  "he  that  despised  Moses' law 
died  without  mercy  under  two  or  three  witnesses. "  Persons 
were  put  to  death  for  violating  the  decalogue.  See  Deut. 
17:  6.  They  were  put  to  death  for  breaking  the  Sabbath, 
Ex.  31 :  14,  blasphemy,  theft,  and  the  like.  Hence  the  de- 
calogue is  included  in  the  "law  of  Moses."  But  in 
verse  24  they  said  ye  must  "  keep  the  law."  So  in  one 
verse  it  is  "  the  law  of  Moses  "  and  in  another  verse  it  is 
simply  "  the  law  "  :  Hence  'there  is  no  difference  between 
"  the  law  "  and  "  the  law  of  Moses." 

In  Josh.  8  :  30,  31,  we  read :    "  Then  Joshua  built  an 


318  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

altar  unto  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  in  mount  Ebal,  as 
Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  commanded  the  children  oi 
Israel,  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  an 
altar  of  whole  stones,  over  which  no  man  hath  lift  up  any 
iron„"  It  says  that  this  about  the  altar  was  written  in  the 
"book  of  the  law  of  Moses."  Now  turn  to  Ex.  20:  25,  the 
very  chapter  where  the  decalogue  is  found,  and  there  you 
have  the  text  referred  to.  "And  if  thou  wilt  make  me  an 
altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt  not  build  it  of  hewn  stone;  for  if 
thou  lift  up  thy  tool  upon  it,  thou  has  polluted  it."  This 
proves  beyond  denial  that  the  ten  commandments  are  in  the 
law  of  Moses. 

Proposition  5.  ''''The  lauP''  was  not  given  till  the  time  of 
Moses  and  Sinai.  The  texts  above  quoted  prove  this. 
Thus:  "The  law  was  given  by  Moses."  John  1:  17.  "Did 
not  Moses  give  you  the  law?"  John  7:  19.  "For  until  the 
law  sin  was  in  the  world;  but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there 
is  no  law.  Nevertheless  death  reigned  from  Adam  to 
Moses."  Rom.  5:  13-14.  The  entrance  of  the  law  is  here 
located  at  Moses.  Again  it  is  located  under  the  Levitical 
priesthood.  "If  therefore  perfection  were  by  the  Levitical 
priesthood,  for  under  it  the  people  received  the  law."  Heb. 
7:  11.  So  the  giving  of  the  law  is  located  "430  years  after 
the  covenant  with  Abraham."  "And  this  I  say,  that  the  cov- 
enant that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law, 
which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  dis- 
annul." Gal.  3:  17.  This  bring  us  to  the  very  year  the 
Jews  came  out  of  Egypt  and  arrived  at  Sinai.  "And  it 
came  to  pass  at  the  end  of  430  years,  even  the  self-same  day 
it  came  to  pass,  that  all  of  the  hosts  of  the  Lord  went  out 
from  the  land  of  Egypt."  Ex.  12:  41.  Beyond  dispute, 
then,  what  the  Bible  calls  "the  law"  was  not  given  till 
Moses,  2,500  years  after  Adam,  or  nearly  half  the  history  of 
the  \porld. 


THE  LAW.  319 

Proposition  6.  The  Ioajo  is  no  where  found  till  Moses. 
No  copy  of  the  law  nor  any  reference  to  it  can  be  found  till 
Moses.  Of  course  God's  great  moral  and  spiritual  law,  con- 
demning every  sin  and  requiring  every  righteous  act — that 
existed  from  Adam,  nay,  from  eternity.  But  what  in  all 
the  Jewish  Scriptures  is  known  as  "the  law,"  as  drawn  out 
in  a  code  on  Sinai,  whether  in  a  book  or  on  the  tables  of 
stone,  this  certainly  did  not  exist  till  Moses.  The  whole 
dispute  between  Paul  and  the  Judaizers  of  his  day  was  over 
this  law.  See  Romans,  Galatians  and  Acts  15  and  21.  The 
question  was  whether  '  'the  law, "  that  which  was  written  in 
"the  book  of  the  law,"  Gal.  3:  10,  and  "engraved  in 
stones,"  2  Cor.  3:  7,  was  to  be  kept  under  the  gospel.  Paul 
said,  No;  they  said,  Yes.  Sabbatarians  now  stick  for  the  law 
of  Sinai  as  did  the  Judaizers  of  old.  To  say  that  i\iQ  prin- 
ciples of  the  law  existed  before  Sinai,  does  not  prove  that 
the  law  existed.  These  principles  could  have  been  taught 
to  Adam  and  his  descendants  in  a  different  form  from  the 
law  as  afterwards  given  at  Sinai.  But  where  do  you  find 
the  law  or  even  one  of  the  ten  commandments,  as  worded  on 
Sinai,  before  that  time  ?    Nowhere. 

The  various  principles  and  precepts,  moral,  ceremomai, 
and  typical,  which  had  previously  been  taught  in  different 
ways,  were  now  gathered  into  one  code  and  worded  so  as  to 
adapt  them,  for  the  time  being,  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
Jewish  nation.  As  thus  worded,  certainly  this  law  had 
never  been  given  before. 

Proposition  7.  Their  fathers  did  not  have  the  deca- 
logue as  worded  on  the  tables.  This  Moses  directly  states. 
Deut.  4:  12,  13,  says  God  spoke  to  them  from  heaven,  and 
declared  to  them  ' 'his  covenant,"  ^  'even  ten  commandments, " 
Chap.  6:  2,  3,  says:  "The  Lord  our  God  made  a  covenant 
with  us  in  Horeb.  The  Lord  made  not  this  covenant  with 
^ur  fathers,  but  with  us."    I'hen  he  repeats  the  ten  com- 


320  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

mandments  as  spoken  from  heaven.  Verses  4-22.  That 
the  main  principles  and  requirements  of  this  code  were 
taught  to  the  fathers  in  some  way  no  one  can  doubt;  but 
that  the  fathers  had  the  law  as  worded  and  arranged  at  Sinai 
is  directly  denied  by  Moses,  as  above. 

Proposition  8.  The  law  was  given  only  to  the  Jews. 
This  is  so  manifest  in  every  item  of  the  law,  that  it  needs  no 
argument  to  prove  it.  Moses  says,  Deut.  4:  8,  that  no 
nation  has  a  law  so  good  "  as  all  this  law  which  I  set  before 
you  this  day. "  Then  he  names  the  ten  commandments  as  a 
part  of  it.  Verses  10-13.  *'This  is  the  law  which  Moses 
set  before  the  children  of  Israel."  Verse  44.  Before  whom? 
Israel,  not  the  Gentiles.  So  again,  Chap.  5:  1.  '^Hear,  O 
Israel,  the  statutes  and  judgments  which  I  speak  in  your 
ears."  Then  follows  the  decalogue.  So  it  is  a  hundred 
times  over  all  through  the  law.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Jews 
and  to  them  only.  The  very  wording  of  the  law  shows  it 
was  designed  for  them  only.  The  decalogue  is  introduced 
thus:  "I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  brought  thee  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage."  Ex.  20:2. 
To  whom  is  that  applicable?  Only  to  the  Jewish  nation. 
Neither  angels,  Adam,  nor  Gentile  Christians  were  ever  in 
Egyptian  bondage.  Then  this  law  is  not  addressed  to 
them.  To  whom  was  the  law  given.  Let  Paul  answer. 
"Who  are  Israelites;  to  whom  pertaineth  the  adoption, 
and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  law." 
Kom.  9:  4.  It  was  given  to  Israel.  "Remember  ye  the  law 
of  Moses  my  servant,  which  I  commanded  unto  him  in  Ho- 
reb  for  all  Israel,  with  the  statutes  and  judgments."  Mala- 
chi4:4.     The  law  was  "/br  all  Israel^^^  and  them  only. 

All  these  things  show  that  this  was  a  national  law  worded 
to  fit  the  condition  of  the  Jews  at  the  time. 

Proposition  9.     The    Gentiles  did  not  hwve  the  law. 
This  has  been  proved  already;  but  Paul  directly  says  so. 


THE  LAW.  321 

Rom.  2:  14.  *'For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the 
law,  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these  hav- 
ing not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves."  This  is  too 
plain  to  need  arguing.  The  Gentiles  did  not  have  the  law. 
Paul  says  so  directly  and  that  ought  to  settle  it,  and  does. 
To  understand  and  obey  the  great  moral  principles  of  that 
law  is  one  thing;  to  be  under  the  letter,  the  exact  wording 
of  the  law  as  given  in  detail  on  Sinai,  is  quite  another,  as 
we  will  see  further  on. 

Proposition  10.  The  rewards  and  penalties  of  the  law 
were  all  temporal.  There  are  no  promises  of  future  rewards, 
nor  threatenings  of  future  punishments  in  all  the  Mosaic 
law.  The  learned  Bishop  Warburton  has  fully  demonstrated 
this  in  his  ' 'Divine  Legation  of  Moses."  Every  careful 
student  of  that  law  must  be  aw^are  of  this  feature  of  it.  The 
reason  is  e\ddent:  it  was  a  national,  temporal  law,  given  for 
a  national,  temporal  purpose.  As  a  sample  of  all,  see  Deut. 
28:  1-19.  If  they  keep  the  law,  they  shall  be  blessed  in 
children,  in  goods,  in  cattle,  in  health,  etc.  If  they  disobey, 
they  shall  be  cursed  in  all  these.  Stoning  to  death  was  the 
penalty  for  theft,  murder,  etc.  Hence  that  was  '  'the  minis- 
tration of  death  written  and  engraved  in  stones,"  2  Cor.  3;7, 
and  "is  done  away,"  verse  11. 

Paul  states  that  the  promise  of  Christ  and  the  future  in- 
heritance was  made  to  Abraham  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  before  the  law  w^as  given.  From  this  he  argues,  and 
forcibly,  too,  that  the  keeping  of  that  law  was  not  necessary 
in  order  to  obtain  Christ  and  the  inheritance.  Verses  16-18. 
"Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made. 
He  saith  not,  and  to  seeds,  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one, 
and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ.  And  this  I  say,  that  the 
covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law, 
which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  dis- 
annul, that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none  eflect.     For 


322  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

if  the  inheritance  be  of  the  law,  it  is  no  more  of  promise: 
but  God  gave  i^  to  Abraham  by  promise."  So  to  the  Ro< 
mans  he  wrote:  "For  the  promise,  that  he  should  be  the 
heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed, 
through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith. 
For  if  they  which  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  faith  is  made  void, 
and  the  promise  made  of  none  effect."     Rom.  4:  13,  14. 

This  plainly  teaches  that  the  law  was  not  given  with  ref- 
erence to  the  future  inheritance.  Certainly  Abraham  did 
not  keep  a  law  which  was  not  given  till  hundreds  of  years 
after  he  died.  But  Abraham  is  the  father  of  all  the  faithful, 
and  not  simply  of  those  who  were  "of  the  law."  Rom. 
4:  13-16.  This  point  alone  ought  to  open  the  eyes  of  those 
who  contend  so  earnestly  for  the  keeping  of  that  law  as  nec- 
essary to  salvation.  We  are  the  children  of  Abraham,  Gal. 
3:  29,  and  "walk  in  the  steps  of  our  father  Abraham,"  who 
was  never  under  the  law.  Rom,  4:  12-16.  We  are  under 
the  covenant  of  promise  made  to  Abraham  430  years  before 
the  law,  Gal.  2:  15-19,  and  not  under  the  covenant  of  law 
from  Sinai,  which  is  bondage.     Gal.  4:  21-26. 

Proposition  11.  God'^s  eternal  law  of  righteousness  ex^ 
isted  hefore  the  law  of  Sinai  was  given.  This  proposition 
is  self-evident.  Surely  God  had  a  law  by  which  to  govern 
his  creatures,  both  angels  and  men,  long  before  Sinai.  But 
"  the  law,"  as  worded  in  the  decalogue  and  in  "  the  book  of 
the  law,"  was  not  given  till  Moses,  2,500  years  after  creation. 
Hence  moral  obligation  did  not  begin  with  that  law,  nor 
would  it  cease  if  that  law  was  abolished.  "All  unrighteous- 
ness is  sin."  1  John  5:  17.  And  "  sin  is  the  transgression 
of  the  law."  Chap.  3:  4.  This  text  is  used  by  Sabbatarians 
to  prove  that  every  possible  sin  is  always  a  violation  of  the 
ten  commandments.  But,  1.  "The  law"  is  the  whole  Mo- 
saic law,  not  merely  the  decalogue.  2.  A  correct  transla- 
tion entirely  spoils  this  text  for  them.    The  word  law  is  not 


THE  LAW.  323 

m  the  text  in  the  original.  The  revised  version  gives  it  cor- 
rectly. '*  Sin  is  lawlessness."  This  is  the  true  meaning  of 
the  text.  Sin  is  lawlessness,  a  disregard  for  some  law,  but 
not  necessarily  always  the  same  law.  Thus:  ^'The  angels 
sinned."  2  Pet.  2:  4.  But  they  did  not  violate  the  law  of 
Sinai,  for  it  was  not  given  till  thousands  of  years  after  they 
fell,  and  they  were  not  under  that  law  any  way. 

Adam  * 'sinned"  long  before  that  law  was  given.  So  Paul 
says,  Rom.  5: 12-14.  Cain  sinned,  Gen.  4:  7.  The  Sodom- 
ites were  ''sinners,"  Gen.  13:  13,  and  vexed  Lot  with  their 
"unlawful  deeds,"  2  Pet.  2:  8.  Surely  none  of  these  vio- 
lated "the  law,"  which  was  not  given  till  Moses,  hundreds  of 
years  afterwards.  To  say  that  they  must  have  violated  the 
principles  of  that  law  is  not  to  the  point.  When  the  Jews 
killed  Stephen,  Acts  7:  59,  they  violated  the  principles  of 
the  law  of  Michigan,  which  forbids  murder;  but  did  they 
violate  the  "law  of  Michigan"?  No;  for  it  was  not  given 
>'or  1800  years  after.  And  they  were  not  under  it  any  way. 
So  neither  the  angels,  nor  Adam,  nor  the  Sodomites  could 
have  transgressed  the  law  of  Sinai,  for  it  was  not  yet  given. 
So  Abraham  kept  God's  laws.  Gen.  26:  5,  but  surely  not 
"the  law  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,". 
Gal.  3:  17.  All  this  clearly  shows  that  God  had  a  law  be- 
fore the  code  of  Sinai  was  given. 

Jesus,  under  the  gospel  1500  years  later,  in  naming  the 
commandments,  gives  them  neither  in  the  same  words  nor 
in  the  same  order  as  found  in  the  decalogue.  Further,  he 
mingles  with  them  some  precepts  from  the  book  of  the  law 
as  of  equal  importance  with  the  ten  commandments.  Thus: 
Do  not  commit  adultery,  do  not  kill,  do  not  steal,  do  not 
bear  false  witness,  defraud  not,  honor  thy  father  and  mother. 
Mark  10:  19.  This  shows  that  the  mere  form  and  order  of 
the  commandments  is  of  no  consequence  as  long  as  the 
idea  is  given.     So  the  two  editions  of  the  decalogue  m 


324:       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Ex.  20  and  Deut.  5  vary  much  in  the  wording;  yet  one  is  as 
good  as  the  other.  This  shows  that  the  exact  wording  is  not 
essential. 

In  whatever  form  or  manner  God  chose  to  communicate 
his  will  to  men,  this  would  be  "his  commandments,  his  stat- 
utes, and  his  laws."  Gen.  26:  5.  Paul  says:  "God,  who 
at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  time  past 
unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days 
spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son."     Heb.  1:  1,  2. 

A  disregard  for  his  revealed  will  would  be  lawlessness — 
sin.  But  to  claim  that  God  gave  the  patriarchs  his  law  in 
the  exact  form  and  words  of  the  ten  commandments  is  a 
proofless  assumption,  contrary  to  reason  and  all  the  facts  iv 
the  case. 

Proposition  12.  This  original  law  is  superior  to  th6 
law  of  Sinai.  When  asked  "Which  is  the  great  command- 
ment in  the  law?"  Jesus  said:  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with 
all  thy  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment. 
And  the  second  is  like  unto  it.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself.  On  these  two  commandments  hang  all  the  law 
and  the  prophets."  Matt.  22:  37-40,  Neither  of  these  is 
in  the  decalogue;  but  that  law  hangs  on  this  higher  law,  and 
so  is  inferior  to  it.  These  principles,  clad  in  the  panoply  of 
eternal  immutability,  lay  back  of  the  Mosaic  law  and  ex- 
isted with  it  throughout  that  dispensation  as  they  had  existed 
before  and  exist  now. 

In  its  very  nature  this  great  law  of  supreme  love  to  God, 
and  equal  love  to  fellow  creatures,  must  be  as  eternal  and 
everlasting  as  God  himself.  This  law  governs  angels — gov- 
erned Adam,  the  patriarchs,  the  pious  Jews,  while  under  "the 
law,"  and  Gentile  Christians  now.  It  is  applicable  to 
all  God's  creatures,  in  all  ages  and  all  worlds.  Idolatry, 
murder,  theft,  selfishness  and  "all  unrighteousness,"  1  John 


THE  LAW.  325 

6:  17,  are  and  always  were  violations  of  this  supreme  law  of 
God.  This  great  law  might  be  worded  in  difierent  ways  at 
different  times  and  yet  the  same  essential  idea  be  preserved. 
Thus  Jesus  stated  the  second  great  commandment  in  another 
form.  '  'Therefore  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them ;  for  tliis  is  the  law 
and  the  prophets."  Matt.  7:  12.  The  idea  is  the  same  as 
"Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  The  exact  words 
or  form  in  which  this  law  is  stated  is  not  material  so  long  as 
the  idea  is  made  plain.  Evidently  this  supreme  law  must 
have  been  made  known  to  Adam  and  to  the  patriarchs  but 
in  just  what  form  we  are  not  told.  To  say  that  it  was  in  the 
exact  words  of  the  decalogue  is  to  affirm  what  can  in  no 
wise  be  proved. 

Proposition  13.  The  Mosaic  law  was  founded  upon  the 
higher  and  original  law.  Jesus  directly  affirms  this,  Matt. 
22:  40.  "On  these  two  commandments  hangs  all  the  law." 
The  principles  of  this  great  law  were  interwoven  all  through 
the  law  of  Sinai,  being  the  life,  "the  spirit,"  or  "  the  right- 
eousness" of  "the  law."  Rom.  2:  26-29;  8:  4.  As  an  ex- 
ample, examine  Lev.  19.  Here  you  have  the  second  great 
commandment,  verse  18,  and  the  principles  of  every  one  of 
the  ten  commandments.  Thus:  1st  commandment,  verse  32; 
2nd,  verse  4;  3d,  verse  12;  4th,  verse  30;  5th,  verse  3;  6th, 
verse  17;  7th,  verse  29;  8th,  verse  13;  9th,  verse  11;  10th, 
verse  35.  Mingled  among  these  are  commandments  about 
sacrifices,  verse  5;  harvest,  verse  9;  clothing,  verse  19; 
priests,  verse  22;  first  fruits,  verse  23;  wizards,  verse  31; 
Gentiles,  verse  34,  etc.  All  these  are  founded  upon  this 
higher  law  and  can  be  changed  to  fit  circumstances  without 
affecting  the  supreme  law,  which  is  ever  the  same. 

The  particular  wording  of  the  law  as  adapted  to  the  Jew- 
ish age  was  "the  letter"  or  "  form  "  of  the  law  for  the  time 
being.     While  the  spirit  of  the  law  can  never  change,  the 


326  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  KENOUNCED. 

letter  of  it  must  change  to  fit  the  changing  circumstances  of 
God's  people.  If  a  Jew  loved  God  with  all  his  heart,  he 
would  have  circumcised  his  sons,  offered  burnt  sacrifices, 
paid  tithes,  kept  the  passover,  the  new  moons,  the  Sabbath, 
and  attended  the  temple  worship,  for  this  was  ^ '  the  law  of 
the  Lord. "  2  Chron.  31:3;  Luke  2 :  22-27.  But  if  a  Chris- 
tian loves  God  he  will  be  baptized,  Acts  2:  38,  take  the 
Lord's  supper,  1  Cor.  11:  24,  attend  church,  Heb.  10:  25, 
keep  "the  Lord's  day,"  Rev.  1:10,  and  do  many  things  very 
different  from  a  Jew.  Hence  'Hhere  is  made  of  necessity  a 
change  also  of  the  law."  Heb.  7:  12.  This  is  both  Bible 
and  common  sense.  Those  who  make  the  mere  letter  of  the 
Jewish  law  an  iron  rule,  and  contend  for  the  exact  wording 
under  all  circumstances,  and  in  all  ages,  miss  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel,  and  are  in  bondage  to  a  system  out  of  date.  Gal. 
3:  19-25;  4:  21-25;  5:  1-3,  13,  14;  2  Cor.  3:  3-15. 

Proposition  14.  ^'-The  law''^  of  Sinai  was  given  to 
restrain  criminals  who  would  only  obey  God  through  fear. 
Consider  this  proposition  well.  A  failure  to  understand  this 
simple  fact  is  the  cause  of  all  the  blunders  of  Sabbatarians 
and  legalists  in  their  extravagant  and  unscriptural  praises 
of  "the  ministration  of  death  written  and  engraven  in 
stones."  2  Cor.  3:  7.  On  this  point  hear  Paul  state  why  that 
law  was  made  and  notice  that  it  is  of  the  moral  precepts  of 
the  law  that  he  speaks.  "Knowing  this,  that  the  law  is  not 
made  for  a  righteous  man,  but  for  the  lawless  and  disobe- 
dient, for  the  ungodly  and  for  sinners,  for  unholy  and  pro- 
fane, for  murderers  of  fathers  and  murderers  of  mothers,  for 
manslayers,  for  whoremongers,  for  them  that  defile  them- 
selves with  mankind,  for  menstealers,  for  liars,  for  perjured 
persons,  and  if  there  be  any  other  thing  that  is  contrary  to 
sound  doctrine."  1  Tim.  1:  9, 10.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  he  refers  to  the  code  of  Sinai,  that  which  prohibited 
murder,  theft,  etc.     This  law  he  says  was  not  made  for  a 


THE  LAW.  327 

righteous  man  but  for  the  lawless.  Of  this  law  in  another 
place  Paul  says:  ''Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law?  It  was 
added  because  of  transgressions."  Gal.  3:  19.  Again, 
"The  law  entered  that  the  offense  might  abound. "  Rom.  5: 
20,  and,  "until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world,"  verse  13. 
Hence  it  is  manifest  that  sin,  offense  and  transgression  ex- 
isted before  "the  law"  was  given,  and  that  it  was  given  to 
prohibit  already  existing  crimes.  Evidently  God  put  the 
race  on  trial  from  Adam  to  Moses  under  the  same  eternal 
law  of  right  and  love  which  governed  the  angels  and  holy 
men.  But  mankind  failed  shamefully.  They  did  not  live 
by  that  rule.  They  became  lawless.  Disregard  of  God  and 
open  violence  towards  men  were  increasing,  till  life  and 
property  were  insecure.  Then  God  selected  one  nation,  the 
Hebrews,  and  gave  up  the  rest  to  their  own  ways.  Rom. 
1:  20-28. 

Up  to  this  time  God's  people  had  not  been  a  nation  by 
themselves  but  had  dwelt  among  other  nations  and  had  been 
subject  to  their  civil  laws  which  prohibited  open  violence  and 
protected  life  and  property.  But  as  soon  as  they  became  a 
nation  by  themselves,  it  became  absolutely  necessary  to  have 
a  national  law  of  their  own  which  would  prohibit  and  pun- 
ish open  crime,  such  as  murder,  theft,  adultery,  etc.  Life 
and  property  would  not  have  been  secure  without  this,  be- 
cause many  among  them  were  wicked,  lawless  men,  "stiff- 
necked  and  rebellious."  If  all  had  been  righteous,  if  all 
had  loved  God  and  their  neighbors,  there  would  have  been 
no  need  of  a  prohibitory  law  with  a  death  penalty.  We  can 
readily  see  the  reason  why  Paul  says  "the  law  was  not 
made  for  a  righteous  man,  but  for  the  lawless."  These  law- 
less ones  would  have  robbed  and  murdered  the  righteous 
ones  had  there  been  no  national,  temporal  law  to  protect 
them,  for  these  wicked  men  would  have  cared  little  about 
God's  higher  law,   which  pertains  to  the  future  judgment 


328  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

But  as  the  Jewish  government  was  a  theocracy,  one  in  which 
God  himself  was  ruler,  the  law  required  and  regulated  service 
to  him  as  well  as  duties  among  themselves. 

Hence  to  this  nation  God  gave  the  law  of  Sinai.  Ex.  2C.' 
2.  Would  it  have  been  given  if  men  had  obeyed  God  with- 
out? Paul  has  settled  that  point.  ''The  law  is  not  made 
for  a  righteous  man,  but  for  the  lawless  and  disobedient." 
1  Tim.  1:  9.  Then  the  law  was  not  made  till  man  had  sin- 
ned, Rom.  5:  13,  offended,  verse  20,  transgressed,  Gal.  3: 
19,  and  became  lawless.  This  then  is  not  God's  original  law 
by  which  he  prefers  to  govern  men.  It  was  a  law  largely  of 
prohibitions,  threats,  pains  and  penalties.  Its  object  was  to 
restrain  open  crime,  protect  men  in  their  natural  rights  and 
preserve  the  knowledge  of  God  in  the  earth  till  Christ 
should  come.  Gal.  3:  19-25.  In  order  to  keep  that  nation 
separate  from  all  others,  many  burdensome  rites  were  in- 
corporated into  the  law  which  made  it  a  yoke  of  bondage. 
Acts  15:  10;  Gal.  5:  1,  3. 

When  Christ  came,  and  the  Jewish  nation  was  rejected 
and  dispersed,  and  their  national  law  overthrown,  and  the 
gospel  went  to  all  nations,  that  law  had  served  its  purpose, 
and  so  passed  away  as  a  system.  Matt.  5:  17-18;  Rom.  10: 
4;  Gal.  3:  21;  Heb.  7:  12-19.  Now  Christians  are  not  un- 
der the  Aaronic  priesthood,  nor  the  Jewish  law.  Heb.  7: 
11,  12;  but  are  under  the  priesthood  of  Melchisedec,  verses 
14-19,  as  was  Abraham  our  father.  Gen.  14:  18-20,  who 
never  had  "the  law"  of  Sinai,  Gal.  3:  17,  but  walked  by  the 
higher  law  which  governs  angels  and  holy  men.  Gen.  26: 
5.  The  Jewish  law  being  removed,  we  now  come  under  the 
same  law  by  which  Enoch  and  Abraham  "walked  with 
God."  The  sermon  on  the  mount  is  a  beautiful  elucidation 
of  that  law,  the  rule  by  which  all  Christians  should  live, 
and  by  which  all  sinners  will  be  judged  at  the  judgment. 

Now,  as  in  the  days  before  Moses,  God's  people  are  not  a 


THE  LAW.  329 

nation  by  themselves,  but  are  scattered  among  all  nations 
where  they  are  governed  and  protected  by  the  civil  law  of 
those  nations.  Hence  the  New  Testament  provides  no  civil 
law  for  the  government  of  Christians,  no  temporal  penal- 
ties for  criminals.  It  would  be  directly  contrary  to  the  na- 
ture of  the  gospel  to  do  either.  All  this  is  left  to  the  rulers 
of  nations  wherever  Christians  happen  to  be.  Open  crim- 
inals, who  will  not  obey  from  principle,  the  higher  law,  are 
now  turned  over  to  the  civil  maonstrate.  Paul  makes  this 
matter  very  plain  and  puts  the  question  beyond  dispute. 
Thus:  "Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers. 
For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God:  the  powers  that  be  are 
ordained  of  God.  Whosoever  therefore  resisteth  the  power, 
resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God;  and  they  that  resist  shall 
receive  to  themselves  damnation.  For  rulers  are  not  a 
terror  to  good  works,  but  to  the  evil.  Wilt  thou,  then,  not  be 
afraid  of  the  power?  Do  that  which  is  good,  and  thou  shalt 
have  praise  of  the  same:  For  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee 
for  good.  But  if , thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid;  for  he 
beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain ;  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God. 
a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil. 
Wherefore  ye  must  needs  be  subject,  not  only  for  wrath, 
but  also  for  concience'  sake.  For,  for  this  cause  pay  ye 
tribute  also;  for  they  are  God's  ministers,  attending  continu- 
ally upon  this  very  thing."     Rom.  13:  1-6. 

There  is  where  you  find  prohibitory  law  for  "the  law- 
less;" that  is,  in  the  civil  law  of  the  land  where  they  live. 
This  punishes  their  crime  against  society.  Their  oflfenses 
against  God's  great  law  will  be  recompensed  at  the  judg- 
ment, but  the  saints  of  God  must  be  governed  by  the  higher 
law,  the  law  of  supreme  love  to  God  and  equal  love  to  fel- 
lows. Such  obedience  can  come  only  from  a  heart  renewed 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  2  Cor.  3:  3,  and  *'if  ye  be  led  of  the 
Spirit  ye  are  not  under  the  law."  Gal.  5:  18. 


330  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  EENOUNCED. 

Is  any  man  a  Christain  who  refrains  from  murder,  theft, 
and  adultery,  simply  because  the  law  says,  '  'Thou  shalt  not"1 
No,  indeed,  he  must  refrain  from  these  from  a  higher  motive 
than  that.  Then  surely  he  must  be  governed  by  a  higher 
law  than  the  decalogue.  "Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law." 
Rom.  13:  10.  The  dispute  between  Paul  and  the  Judaizers 
then  was  over  the  nature  and  obligation  of  the  Jewish  law. 
The  dispute  now  concerning  the  Jewish  Sabbath  involves 
the  same  point,  the  obligation  of  the  letter  of  the  Jewish 
law. 

Proposition  15.  The  letter  of  the  law  is  not  hinding 
upon  Christians  as  a  coercive  code.  Little  argument  ought 
to  be  needed  to  prove  this;  for  if  the  letter  of  the  law  is 
binding,  then  we  must  be  circumcised ;  ofter  sacrifices,  keep 
the  seventh  day  and  all  the  Jewish  ritual,  for  "the  law"  in- 
cluded the  whole  law.  Gal.  3:  10;  5:  3. 

Notice  m  the  following  text  that  "the  righteousness  of  the 
law"  and  the  spirit  of  the  law  is  one  thing,  while  "the  let- 
ter" and  outward  service  is  quite  another.  Notice  further 
that  a  man  may  "fulfill  the  law"  without  keeping  the  letter  of 
it,  and  thus  condemn  the  formalist  who  keeps  the  letter  of 
the  law  but  not  the  spirit  of  it.  Paul  says:  "If  the  uncircum- 
cision  keep  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  shall  not  his  uncir- 
cumcision  be  counted  for  circumcision  ?  And  shall  not  un- 
circumcision  which  is  by  nature,  if  it  fulfill  the  law,  judge 
thee,  who  by  the  letter  and  circumcision  dost  transgress  the 
law  ?  For  he  is  not  a  Jew,  which  is  one  outwardly,  neither 
is  that  circumcision,  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh.  But  he 
is  a  Jew,  which  is  one  inwardly;  and  circumcision  is  that 
of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter;  whose  praise 
is  not  of  men,  but  of  God."     Rom.  2:  26-29. 

Paul  argues  that  Christians  must  be  circumcised,  but  not 
"outwardly  in  the  flesh,"  as  formerly,  but  "inwardly  in  the 
spirit,  not  in  the  letter."    By  this  he  illustrates  the  diflfer' 


THE  LAW.  331 

ence  between  keeping  the  law  now  and  formerly.  So,  fur- 
ther on:  "Ye  are  not  under  the  law  but  under  grace." 
Rom.  6:  14.  So  in  the  next  chapter  he  says:  "But  now  we 
are  delivered  from  the  law,  that  being  dead  wherein  we 
were  held;  that  we  should  serve  in  newness  of  spirit,  and 
not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter."    Rom.  7:  6. 

How  can  one  misunderstand  language  so  plain  ?  Now^ 
under  Christ,  we  are  delivered  from  the  law;  that  law  is 
dead,  and  we  serve  Christ  in  the  spirit,  "not  in  the  old  let- 
ter." So  again  he  says,  urging  this  point:  "That  the 
righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk 
not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit."  Chap.  8:  4.  Paul 
uses  the  word  '^JlesK'^  for  the  outward  "works  of  the  law." 
See  Gal.  3:  2,  3,  We  do  not  walk  according  to  the  outward 
form  of  the  law,  but  we  do  obey  the  intent  and  spirit  of  it 
or  its  "righteousness,"  as  he  here  calls  it. 

The  higher  law  of  God,  supreme  love  to  God  and  equal 
love  to  our  neighbors,  upon  which  the  Jewish  law  hung,  was 
the  "spirit,"  "righteousness,"  or  real  intent  of  "the  law." 
This  "first  and  great"  law  Christians  do  keep,  while  free 
from  the  mere  letter  of  the  law,  which  was  bondage.  Hence 
to  the  Galatians  who  were  being  troubled  with  Judaizing 
legalists,  Paul  wrote:  "For,  brethren,  ye  have  been  called 
unto  liberty;  only  use  not  liberty  for  an  occasion  to  the 
flesh,  but  by  love  serve  one  another.  For  all  the  law  is  ful- 
filled in  one  word,  even  in  this:  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself.  But  if  ye  be  led  of  the  Spirit,  ye  are  not 
under  the  law."     Gal.  5:  13,  14,  18. 

How  he  reiterates  the  truth  in  all  ms  letters,  that  Chris- 
tians are  not  under  the  law;  that  they  are  called  to  a  liberty 
which  Jews  never  enjoyed.  Notice  how  he  states  it  over 
and  over  that  all  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  this.  Love  your  neigh- 
bor as  yourself.  "Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law."  "He 
that  loveth  another  hath  fulfilled  the  law."    Rom.  13:  8,  10. 


332  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

This  is  not  a  liberty  to  licentiousness  ana  self-indulgence; 
but  it  is  a  liberty  from  the  forms  and  ceremonies  of  the  law 
which  bound  the  Jews. 

In  Jer.  31:  31-3ti,  it  was  foretold  that  the  Lord  would 
make  a  ''new  covenant*'  with  Israel,  ''not  according"  to  the 
one  he  made  at  Sinai;  for  he  would  put  his  laws  in  their 
hearts  and  minds.  This  clearly  indicated  a  change  from  the 
previous  formal  way  of  governing  God's  people.  Paul  thus 
refers  to  that  prophecy:  "not  in  tables  of  stone,  but  in 
fleshly  tables  of  the  heart."  "Who  also  hath  made  us  able 
ministers  of  the  New  Testament;  not  of  the  letter,  but  of 
the  spirit:  for  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth 
life."    2  Cor.  3:  3,  6. 

Now  the  law  for  the  Christian  is  not  that  written  in  the 
book  or  on  the  tables  of  stone.  It  was  not  the  letter  but 
the  spirit  of  that  law  which  the  apostles  taught.  So  Paul 
says.  Then  he  says  that  "the  ministration  of  death  written 
and  engraven  in  stones,  was"  ''done  away."  Verses  7,  11. 
Surely,  then.  Christians  are  free  from  the  letter  of  that  law; 
but  it  is  still  to  be  studied  with  reverence  and  its  spirit  car- 
ried out  in  Christian  duties  though  in  form  these  must  difier 
from  Jewish  duties.  The  observance  of  the  Lord's  day 
meets  the  spirit  of  the  fourth  commandment.  We  are  cir- 
cumcised in  heart,  not  in  the  flesh.     Rom.  2:  26-29. 

Rev.  W.  P.  Harrison,  D.  D.,  book  editor  of  the  M. 
E.  Church,  South,  truly  says:  "The  coming  of  Christ 
did  not  repeal  any  moral  law,  and  the  ceremonial  law  was 
not  repealed,  but  fulfilled.  All  that  was  permanent, 
useful,  or  spiritual  in  the  Mosaic  economy  remains, 
not  in  the  letter  of  statutes^  but  in  the  fulfilled  and 
completed  dispensation  of  grace. "  The  Christian  Sabbath, 
"The  page  30.  So  Rev.  J.  H.  Potts,  D.  D.  Methodist,  says: 
Law  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  formulated  into 
nhie  moral  precepts,  with  a  Sabbath  commandment  added, 


THE  LAW.  333 

making  ten  in  all.  This  same  law  under  the  Christian 
dispensation  is  summarized  under  two  grand  heads — love  to 
God  and  love  to  man.  Yet  not  one  jot  or  one  tittle  of  the 
essence  of  the  moral  law  is  abated.  When  Paul,  referring 
to  the  abolishment  of  the  law  dispensation,  said:  'For  if 
that  which  was  done  away  was  glorious,  much  more  that 
which  remaineth  is  glorious, '  he  indicated  the  correct  status 
of  the  law.  The  essence  of  the  moral  law  *remaineth.' " 
This  is  exactly  what  I  believe. 

The  following,  from  Peter,  is  a  fair  illustration  of  the 
spiritual  application  of  the  old  law  which  the  apostles  make 
all  through  the  gospel:  "Ye  also,  as  lively  stones,  are  built 
up  a  spiritual  house,  a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual 
sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ."  1  Peter  2: 
5.  The  old  temple,  priesthood,  and  sacrifices  of  the  law, 
now  have  a  spiritual  meaning  as  found  in  the  church  and  its 
service. 

Proposition  16.  The  law  was  changed.  Jeremiah  pre- 
dicted that  under  the  new  covenant,  God's  law  would  be 
written  in  the  heart  and  not  as  it  was  before.  "1  will  put 
my  law  in  their  inward  parts  and  write  it  in  their  hearts." 
Jer.  31:  33.  Paul  refers  to  this  when  he  says.  Ye  are  our 
epistle  "written  not  with  ink,  but  with  the  spirit  of  the  liv- 
ing God;  not  in  tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshly  tables  of  the 
heart."  2  Cor.  3:  3.  So  then  God's  law  is  not  now  written 
on  tables  of  stone  as  at  Sinai.  This  is  a  square  contradic- 
tion to  what  Adventists  teach.  They  claim  that  God's  law  is 
still  on  stones  in  heaven  the  same  as  of  old.  Paul  says  no, 
it  is  written  by  the  spirit  upon  the  heart. 

This  implied  ci  radical  change  in  the  f  oiTn  of  the  law  and  the 
way  it  was  to  be  taught.  In  Heb.  7:  12,  it  is  expressly  de- 
clared that  "there  is  made  of  necessity  a  change  also  of  the 
laWo"  The  letter  of  the  Je^ash  law  is  wholly  unfitted  to 
the  condition  of  the  Christian  church.     It  can  only  be  a 


334  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

guide  to  us  as  modified  and  interpreted  by  tlie  gospel.  But 
in  the  gospel  there  is  no  hij  unction  to  keep  the  seventh  day. 
Hence  the  letter  of  that  command  does  not  concern  us. 

Proposition  17.  The  whole  Mosaic  system  ended  at  the 
cross.  Surely  this  is  so  plainly  taught  all  through  the  New 
Testament  that  no  one  should  deny  it.  But  we  have  clearly 
proved  that  "the  law"  included  the  whole  code  of  laws  given 
to  Israel  at  Sinai,  moral,  civil,  and  ceremonial  precepts, 
decalogue  and  all. 

That  entire  system  of  law  was  framed  to  fit  the  Jewish 
age  and  could  not  possibly  be  applied  to  Gentile  Christians 
in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Hence  a  "new  way,"  Heb.  10:  20, 
a  "new  covenant,"  Heb.  8: 13,  a  new  "ministration,"  2  Cor. 
3:  8,  was  introduced,  so  there  was  "  made  of  necessity  a 
change  also  of  the  law,"  Heb.  Y:  12. 

Examine  carefully  a  few  texts  to  which  I  will  refer.  '  'The 
law  was  given  by  Moses  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus 
Christ."  John  1:  17.  This  implies  a  change.  "Ye  are  not 
under  the  law,  but  under  grace."  Rom.  6:  14.  "Under 
the  merciful  dispensation  of  the  gospel."  John  Wesley. 
^'The  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that 
we  might  be  justified  by  faith.  But  after  that  faith  is  come, 
we  are  no  longer  under  a  schoolmaster,"  Gal.  3:  24,  25.  "Ye 
also  are  become  dead  to  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ," 
Rom.  7:  4.  "Now  we  are  delivered  from  the  law,"  verse 
6.  "Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,"  Rom.  10:  4.  "The 
ministration  of  death  written  and  engraven  in  stones  was 
glorious."  "That  which  is  done  away  was  glorious,"  2  Cor. 
3:  7,  10.     That  ends  the  decalogue. 

*  'Having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of 
commandments  contained  in  ordinances,"  Eph.  2:  15. 
"Blotting  out  the  handwriting  of  ordinances  that  was 
against  us,  which  was  contrary  to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the 
way,  nailing  it  to  the  cross."     "Let  no  man  therefore  judge 


THE  LAW.  335 

yovL  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy  day,  or  of 
the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days/'  Col.  2:  14,  16. 
*'For  the  priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  made  of  necessity 
change  also  of  the  law."  ''For  there  is  verily  a  disannulling 
of  the  commandment  going  before  for  the  weakness  and  un- 
profitableness thereof. "  ' '  For  the  law  made  nothing  perfect 
but  the  bringing  in  of  a  better  hope."    Heb.  7:  12, 18, 19. 

Read  Acts  15:  1-29  and  see  this  whole  matter  of  "the 
law"  discussed  by  the  apostles  and  settled  in  these  words: 
'•  Forasmuch  as  we  have  heard  that  certain  which  went 
out  from  us  have  troubled  you  with  words,  subverting  your 
souls,  saying,  ye  must  be  circumcised,  and  keep  the  law;  to 
whom  we  gave  no  such  commandment."  Verse  24.  The 
decision  is  positive  and  clear:  the  apostles  gave  no  command- 
ment to  "keep  the  law."  It  does  not  say  '^ceremonial  law," 
or  a  part  of  the  law,  but  simply  'Hhe  law."  Adventists  say 
we  must  keep  the  law  or  "ye  can  not  be  saved,"  exactly 
what  those  Judaizers  said,  verse  1,  and  just  what  the  council 
condemned.  Circumcision  was  specially  mentioned  because 
it  was  the  initiatory  rite,  the  sign  which  represented  the 
whole  law.  Thus  when  a  Gentile  would  partake  of  the 
privileges  of  the  nation,  he  had  first  to  be  circumcised. 
Ex.  12:  48.  To  be  uncircumcised  was  to  be  a  heathen,  un- 
clean, and  lost;  to  be  circumcised  was  to  be  an  Israelite,  a 
member  of  the  holy  nation.  Hence  circumcision  represented 
the  whole  law  of  Moses  in  all  its  parts.  Elder  Butler,  Ad- 
ventist  leader,  has  to  confess  this.  He  says:  "  The  term 
'the  law, '  among  the  Jews  generally  included  the  five  books 
of  Moses,  thus  including  the  whole  system,  moral,  ritual, 
typical,  and  civil  This  as  a  system  these  Judaizing  teachers 
desired  to  maintain  Circumcision  was  a  sign  of  the  whole.'' 
Law  in  Galatians,  page  70.  Never  was  a  truer  statement. 
Circumcision  was  the  sign  of  the  whole  Mosaic  system, 
moral,  typical,  civil,  all  chat  was  written  in  the  five  books  of 


336  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Moses,  of  which  the  decalogue  was  a  chief  part.  The  apos- 
tles decided  that  Gentile  believers  were  free  from  this  whole 
system  of  law.  Put  with  Butler's  statement  this  from  Elder 
Smith,  another  leading  Adventist,  and  you  have  the  whole 
truth:  "That  which  was  abolished  at  the  cross  was  an  en- 
tire system.  God  did  not  single  out  and  abolish  portions 
and  pieces  of  some  arrangement  or  system,  and  leave  other 
parts  remaining."  Synopsis  of  Present  Truth,  page  259. 
Correct;  the  whole  system  ended  at  the  cross. 

Proposition  18.  No  part  of  GocTs  great  spiritual  law 
was  abolished^  re-enacted^  or  changed  at  the  cross.  Adventists 
make  a  great  ado  over  the  absurdity  of  the  idea  that  God 
should  abolish  his  law  at  the  cross  and  then  immediately  re- 
enact  nine-tenths  of  it.  They  say,  as  well  cut  off  your  ten 
fingers  to  get  rid  of  one  bad  one  and  then  stick  nine  on 
again.  So  they  go  on  with  a  whole  jumble  of  absurdities 
involved  in  the  position  that  God's  moral  law  was  abolished 
at  the  cross  and  a  new  one  given.  But  this  is  only  a  man 
of  straw  of  their  own  making  and  hence  easily  demolished. 
We  hold  no  such  absurd  position.  God's  great  moral  law  is 
unchangeable.  But  the  Mosaic  law  was  only  a  national  one 
founded  upon  the  principles  of  God's  moral  law.  Even 
while  it  existed  it  did  not  supercede  God's  higher  law,  and 
when  it  ended  it  in  no  way  affected  God's  law,  which  contin- 
ued right  on  unchanged  and  unchangeable. 

To  ilhistrate:  The  state  law  of  Michigan  forbids  murder, 
theft  and  adultery.  In  these  items  it  is  founded  upon  God's 
moral  law.  Now  abolish  the  law  of  Michigan.  Does  that 
abolish  God's  law  ?  No.  So  with  the  state  law  of  Israel. 
Neither  its  enactment  on  Sinai  nor  its  abolition  at  the  cross 
in  any  way  changed  God's  great  moral  law  by  which  he  will 
judge  the  world.  The  Advent  absurdities  grew  out  of  their 
own  false  theory,  that  is  all.  Adventists  agree  with  us  that 
the  law  of  Moses,  Acts  15:  5,  was  abolished.  Well,  that  law 


THE  LAW.  337 

contained  many  precepts  as  purely  moral  as  anything  in  the 
decalogue.  Here  are  some:  ''Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart. "  Deut.  6:  5.  ''Love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself."  "Ye  shall  not  steal,  neither  deal  falsely,  neither 
lie  one  to  another."  Lev.  19:  11,  18.  Scores  of  such  pre- 
cepts are  all  through  this  law  which  they  admit  was 
abolished.  They  are  just  as  moral,  spiritual,  and  necessary 
as  anything  in  the  ten  commandments,  and  yet  all  this  law 
was  abolished  as  they  admit.  But  did  that  abolish  the  duty 
enjoined  in  these  precepts  ?  No,  because  they  were  inherent 
in  a  higher  law.  Just  so  every  moral  principle  involved  in 
the  decalogue  existed  in  a  higher  law  before  that  document 
was  given,  and  so  did  not  cease  when  that  law  expired. 
Elder  White  himself  makes  this  admission:  "The  ten  com- 
mandments are  adapted  to  fallen  beings.  As  worded  in  the 
sacred  Scripture,  they  are  not  adapted  to  the  condition  of 
holy  angels,  nor  to  man  in  his  holy  estate  in  Eden.  •>«•** 
But  the  two  grand  principles  of  God's  moral  government 
did  exist  before  the  fall,  in  the  form  of  law.  *  -^  *  These 
two  great  commandments  embrace  all  that  is  required  by 
the  ten  precepts  of  the  decalogue."  Law  and  Gospel,  pages 
4,  5.  Good  and  true.  Then  the  ten  commandments  are 
not  God's  primary  law.  They  are  only  temporary,  while 
that  containing  all  that  is  moral  in  them,  and  much  more, 
continues  always. 

"The  teachings  of  Christianity  are  facts  and  principles, 
not  propositions  and  restrictions;  its  institutions  are  simple 
outlines,  not  precise  ceremonies;  and  its  laws  are  moral  sen- 
timents, not  minute  mechanical  directions. "  Pulpit  Com- 
mentary on  2  Cor.  3:  6.     This  is  the  truth  well  put. 

So  the  wicked  who  do  not  live  by  these  principles,  who  do 
not  love  God  nor  their  fellows,  but  who  live  selfish,  corrupt 
lives,  will  be  judged  and  condemned  by  these  principles  of 
God's  eternal  law,  as  taught  in  the  New  Testament. 


CHAPTER  XVni. 

THE  DECALOGUE  EXAMINED. 

With  Seventh-Day  Adventists  the  decalogue  is  the  one 
supreme  moral  and  spiritual  law  of  God,  than  which  there  is 
none  higher.  It  is  the  law  which  governs  the  angels  in  heaven. 
Thus  Mrs.  White  says:  "The  law  of  God  existed  before 
man  was  created.  The  angels  were  governed  by  it.  *  *  * 
After  Adam  and  Eve  were  created,  God  made  known  to 
them  his  law."  "Spirit  of  Prophecy,"  Vol.  I,  page  261. 
It  governs  all  men  in  all  ages,  and  in  the  world  to  come. 
These  ten  commandments  cover  the  whole  duty  of  man,  so 
that  there  is  no  sin  which  can  be  committed  that  is  not  a 
violation  of  this  law,  while  at  the  same  time  it  enjoins  every 
virtue.  "No  virtue  known  to  the  moral  world  herein  fails  of 
approval  and  commendation;  and  no  vice  or  crime  of  which 
man  was  ever  guilty,  escapes  condemnation."  Perfection  of 
the  Ten  Commandments,  page  4.  But  these  claims  are  ex- 
travagant and  unfounded.  A  desire  to  sustain  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath  has  led  to  this  false  position  on  the  decalogue. 
Twenty-five  hundred  years,  nearly  half  the  entire  history 
of  the  world,  passed  away  before  the  decalogue  was  given 
at  all,  as  we  have  proved.  This  is  strange  if  the  decalogue 
is  so  all  important. 

Let  us  examine  it.  Moses  says  distinctly  that  all  the  words 
which  the  Lord  spoke  were  written  on  the  tables  of  stone: 
"And  the  Lord  delivered  unto  me  two  tables  of  stone, 
written  with  the  finger  of  God:  and  on  them  was  written  ac- 
cording to  all  the  words  which  the  Lord  spake  with  you  in 
the  Mount,  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire."     Deut.  9: 10.    This 

(338) 


THE   DECALOGUE   EXAMINED.  339 

text  is  too  decisive  to  be  evaded.  All  that  God  spoke  was 
written  on  the  tables  and  was  a  part  of  the  decalogue.  Here 
are  the  first  of  those  words:  "And  God  spake  all  these 
words,  saying,  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  have  brought 
thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage. 
Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me,"  etc.  Ex,  20: 
1-3.  These  words  are  as  much  a  part  of  the  decalogue  as 
any  of  the  rest  of  it.  They  were  spoken  by  God  from 
heaven,  written  by  his  finger,  were  engraven  on  the  stone, 
and  put  in  the  ark.  Now  look  at  the  law  chart  which 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  hang  up  as  the  '  'law  of  God. "  Are 
these  words  on  there  ?  No,  indeed.  Why  are  they  left  oflT? 
Because,  if  put  on,  they  would  spoil  their  whole  theory  of 
that  law.  They  claim  that  this  law  is  binding  upon  the 
angels.  But  how  would  this  sound  to  the  angels:  "I  am 
the  Lord  thy  God,  which  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage"?  Were  the  angels  in 
bondage  in  Egypt  ?  Would  not  that  sound  a  little  queer  to 
Gabriel  and  the  seraphs,  to  be  told  that  they  had  been  in  bond  • 
age  in  Egypt?  Read  it  to  Adam.  That  would  have  been  news 
to  him  to  learn  that  he  had  been  in  bondage  in  Egypt!  Eead 
it  to  a  free-born  American;  read  it  to  all  the  redeemed  hosts 
in  heaven.  To  whom  are  the  words  applicable  ?  Just  to 
the  Jewish  nation  and  to  no  others.  For  them  the  deca- 
logue was  framed  and  to  them  it  was  given.  For  years 
I  searched  to  find  one  text  stating  that  this  law  was 
ever  given  to  any  people  but  the  Jews.  I  never  found 
it.  These  first  words  show  plainly  that  it  was  addressed 
only  to  them. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  assert  that  the  Sabbath  precept 
is  the  only  thing  in  the  decalogue  that  tells  who  gave  it. 
Thus:  ''Aside  from  this  precept  [the  Sabbath]  there  is 
nothing  in  the  decalogue  to  show  by  whose  authority  the  law 
is  given."     Mrs.  White,  in  Great  Controversy,  page  284. 


340  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

This  is  not  true.  The  introductory  words  tell  plainly  who 
gave  it.  It  was  the  God  who  brought  them  out  of  Egypt. 
Here  are  the  name,  signature  and  seal  of  that  law  in  the 
first  words  of  it.  Here  God  stands  before  them  as  their 
Deliverer^  rather  than  as  their  Creator.  Their  obedience  to 
these  commands  is  based  upon  this  fact.  See  how  plain  it 
is.  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  that  brought  thee  out  of  Egypt, 
therefore  thou  shalt  do  thus  and  so.  Egypt,  not  Eden,  is 
pointed  to.  In  the  copy  of  the  decalogue  as  given  in  Deut. 
6:  6-21,  there  is  no  reference  whatever  to  creation,  while  de- 
liverance from  Egypt  is  made  prominent.  ' '  To  extend  it 
further  than  its  own  preface  is  to  violate  the  rules  of 
criticism. " 

What  an  unnatural  and  unheard  of  thing  it  would  be,  in 
giving  an  important  document,  to  sign  the  name  of  the  au- 
thor in  the  middle  of  it,  as  Sabbatarians  say  the  Lord  did  in 
giving  the  decalogue!  In  our  time  the  name  is  signed  at  the 
close  of  a  document;  but  anciently,  specially  among  the 
Jews,  the  name  of  the  author  was  always  given  ^rs^,  in  the 
first  sentence  of  the  document.  Thus:  "  Artaxerxes,  king 
of  kings,  unto  Ezra,"  etc.  Ezra  7:  12.  "The  vision  of 
Isaiah,"  etc.  Isa.  1:  1.  "The  words  of  Jeremiah,"  etc. 
Jer.  1:  1.  "Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,"  etc.  Rom. 
1:  1.  "James,  a  servant  of  God,"  etc.  Jas.  1:  1.  "Peter, 
an  apostle,"  etc.  1  Pet.  1:1.  So  it  is  all  through  the  Bible, 
the  name  and  authority  are  given  first,  then  follows  the  body 
of  the  document.  Just  so  the  Lord,  according  to  this 
ancient  custom  then  in  use  and  familiar  to  all,  in  giving  the 
decalogue  first  announces  his  name,  "the  Lord  thy  God," 
and  his  power,  "that  brought  thee  out  of  Egypt." 

This  he  does  in  the  opening  words  of  that  law.  Here, 
then,  in  the  very  first  words  of  the  decalogue,  and  not  in 
the  Sabbath  precept  in  the  middle  of  the  law,  is  the  name, 
sign  and  seal  of  the  law-giver,  Jehovah,  i^ho  brought  them 


THE  DECALOGUE  EXAMINED.  341 

out  of  Egypt.  This  settles  it  that  this  law  was  not  given  till 
then,  was  given  only  to  the  Jews  and  was  designed  for  no 
others.  To  illustrate:  Opening  to  a  law  passed  by  the  leg- 
islature of  Michigan,  February  16,  1882,  I  read:  "  Be  it 
enacted  by  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives  of  the 
state  of  Michigan,"  etc.  Now  suppose  that  some  one  should 
claim  that  this  law  was  passed  one  thousand  years  ago  and 
was  designed  for  the  whole  world.  Would  not  these  open- 
ing w^ords  show  that  this  law  was  not  enacted  till  Michigan 
became  a  state  and  that  it  was  designed  only  for  the  people 
of  Michigan  ?  Assuredly.  Just  so  the  opening  words  of 
the  decalogue  show  that  this  law  was  not  given  till  God 
brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  that  it  was  given  to  them  and 
to  no  others.  If  any  one  will  find  a  copy  of  the  decalogue  be- 
fore this  time,  we  will  give  up  the  case.  All  the  way 
through  it  there  are  evidences  that  it  was  worded  to  fit  only 
the  Jewish  nation  in  their  peculiar  circumstances. 

Take  the  Sabbath  commandment:  ''Thy  son,  nor  thy 
daughter,  thy  man  servant,  nor  thy  maid  servant,  nor  thy 
cattle,  nor  thy  stranger  that  is  w^ithm  thy  gates."  Ex.  20: 
10.  Think  of  that  commandment  being  given  to  angels  in 
heaven!  "Sons,"  "daughters,"  and  "thy  neighbor's  wife," 
verse  17,  when  they  neither  marry  nor  are  given  m  marriage! 
Again:  "Cattle,"  "ox,"  "ass,"  etc.  Do  the  angels  own  cat- 
tle and  work  oxen  and  asses  in  heaven  ?  So  "man  servants 
and  maid  servants."  This  means  bond  servants  or  slaves, 
such  as  the  Hebrews  owned  in  those  days.  This  is  shown 
by  the  tenth  commandment,  verse  17.  "  Thou  shalt  not 
covet  thy  neighbor's  *  *  *  man  servant,  nor  his  maid  ser- 
vant, nor  his  ox,  nor  his  ass."  These  were  his  property, 
servants  or  slaves,  oxen,  asses,  etc.  But  do  the  angels  own 
Slaves  ?  Did  Adam  have  servants  in  Eden  ?  Will  the  re- 
deemed own  them  hereafter?  What  nonsense  to  apply  this 
law  to  the  angels  and  to  Eden  and  to  heaven!     This  wording 


342       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

was  specially  adapted  to  the  social  condition  of  the  Jews  as 
a  nation  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  to  no  others. 

Once  more:  ^'Thy  stranger  that  is  within  thy  gates." 
Verse  10.  As  everybody  knows,  "the  stranger  "was  the 
Gentile.  "Within  thy  gates"  was  a  common  expression 
meaning  within  your  cities  or  dwelling  in  your  land.  It  has 
no  reference  to  living  on  your  farm  or  inside  the  gates  that 
enclose  your  farm,  as  Adventists  always  explain  it.  The 
towns  were  walled  in  and  entered  by  gates.  Here  is  where 
the  judges  sat  and  all  business  was  done.  Thus:  "All  that 
went  in  at  the  gate  of  his  city."  Gen.  23:  10.  "Judges 
and  ojEcers  shalt  thou  make  thee  in  all  thy  gates."  Deut. 
16:  18.  To  this  custom  of  the  Jews  the  Sabbath  command- 
ment refers.  All  the  Gentiles  dwelling  in  their  cities  among 
them  must  be  made  to  keep  the  Sabbath.  This  shows  it  to 
be  a  national  law,  worded  in  all  its  parts  to  fit  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Jews  at  the  time. 

This  command,  then,  could  not  apply  to  any  but  the  Jews 
there.  Again,  the  fifth  commandment:  "  The  land  which 
the  Lord  giveth  them,"  verse  12,  plainly  refers  to  Canaan, 
which  God  gave  them.  The  ninth  precept:  "Thou  shalt 
not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbor."  This  does  not 
relate  to  lying  in  general,  but  only  to  a  false  oath  against 
a  neighbor  in  court.  See  Deut.  19:  15-19.  A  man  could 
tell  a  hundred  lies  which  would  not  be  false  witness  against 
a  neighbor.  The  command  against  lying  is  found  in  Lev. 
19:  11:  "Neither  lie  one  to  another."  This  is  a  moral  pre- 
cept much  broader  than  the  ninth  commandment. 

Every  principle  contained  in  the  decalogue  is  also  found 
time  and  again  laid  down  in  the  law  of  Moses,  either  in  the 
same  or  similar  words.  Thus,  for  example:  Lev.  19  reiterates 
every  principle  found  in  the  ten  commandments,  with  many 
more  besides.  How  erroneous,  then,  to  call  one  the  moral 
law  and  the  other  the  ceremonial  law,  when  both  are  of  the 


THE  DECALOGUE  EXAMINED.  343 

«ame  nature,  the  decalogue  simply  being  representative  pre- 
cepts from  the  law  of  Moses. 

But  the  chief  argument  used  to  prove  the  superior  nature 
of  the  ten  commandments  is  that  they  were  spoken  by 
God's  voice,  written  by  His  finger  on  stone,  and  placed  in 
the  ark,  while  all  the  rest  of  the  law  was  written  by  the 
hand  of  Moses  in  a  book.  Why  were  these  commandments 
thus  selected  out  and  given  in  such  a  manner  if  not  to  exalt 
them  above  all  others  ?  The  answer  is  easy:  According  to 
the  custom  of  those  times,  any  solemn  contract  or  covenant 
was  commemorated  by  selecting  some  object  as  witness  or 
testimony  of  it.  Thus:  Jacob  erected  a  pillar  as  a  witness 
of  his  vow  to  God.  Gen.  28:  18.  Jacob  and  Laban  made 
a  heap  of  stones  as  witness  of  their  covenant.  Gen.  31:  48. 
Abraham  set  apart  seven  lambs  as  "  a  witness  "  of  his  cove- 
nant with  Abimelech.     Gen.  21:  27-30. 

Just  so  w^hen  the  solemn  covenant  was  made  between  God 
and  Israel  at  Sinai,  the  Lord  gave  them  the  tables  of  stone 
to  be  always  kept  as  a  witness  or  "testimony"  of  that  agree- 
ment. Hence  they  are  called  "the  tables  of  testimony," 
that  is,  witness.  Ex.  31:  18.  So  the  tabernacle  was  "the 
tabernacle  of  testimony,"  Num.  1:  53;  or,  "the  tabernacle 
of  witness,"  Num.  17:  7.  These  tables  of  stone,  then,  con- 
taining some  of  the  chief  items  of  the  law,  were  always  to 
be  kept  as  '^witness''''  of  the  covenant  which  Israel  had 
made  to  keep  that  law.  Evidently  this  is  the  reason  why 
the  decalogue  was  given  as  it  was,  and  not  because  it  was  a 
perfect  and  eternal  law  in  and  of  itself. 

Manifestly  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  carry  around 
the  whole  law  if  written  on  stones;  hence  only  a  few 
samples  out  of  that  law  could  have  been  selected  and  put  on 
stones  to  be  kept  as  a  witness  of  that  covenant.  So  the 
reason  why  God  spoke  these  words  was  not  because  it  was  a 
perfect  law,  but  to  impress  their  minds  so  that  they  never 


344  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTI8M   RENOUNCED. 

would  forget  it.  This  is  just  what  God  says  himself:  **I 
will  make  them  hear  my  words,  that  they  may  learn  to  fear 
me  all  the  days  that  they  shall  live."  Deut.  4:  10.  How 
much  more  simple  and  manifest  these  reasons  are  than  the 
imaginary  ones  invented  by  Sabbatarians. 

That  the  decalogue  was  merely  the  national  law  for  the 
Jews  and  temporal  in  its  obligation,  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  stoning  to  death  was  the  penalty  for  its  violation. 
When  death  was  thus  inflicted  upon  a  man,  he  had  paid  the 
penalty  of  that  law,  and  all  the  penalty  there  was.  But  is 
stoning  to  death  the  penalty  for  God's  moral  law  ?  No,  that 
is  eternal  death  at  the  judgment.  A  man  who  is  hung  for 
murder  has  paid  the  penalty  of  the  law  of  our  land,  the 
same  as  the  Jew  who  was  stoned  paid  the  penalty  of  the  law 
of  his  land.  Will  God  judge  a  man  the  second  time  at  the 
judgment  by  the  law  of  our  land  after  he  has  once  paid  its 
penalty  by  hanging?  No,  but  he  will  be  judged  by  another 
and  a  higher  law,  the  great  spiritual  law  of  God.  And  so 
it  will  be  with  the  Jews.  They  will  never  be  judged  the 
second  time  by  the  decalogue,  for  that  was  only  national,  but 
by  the  higher  law,  the  one  that  requires  supreme  love  to 
God,  and  love  to  man  as  to  himself.  A  law  without  a  pen- 
alty is  a  nullity;  but  stoning,  the  penalty  attached  to  the  de- 
calogue, was  abolished  at  the  cross;  hence  the  law  must  have 
ceased  there  too. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  claim  that  the  ten  commandments 
are  a  perfect  law,  condemning  every  possible  sin  and  requir- 
ing every  possible  virtue  But  this  is  all  assumption  and  con- 
trary to  the  manifest  truth.  Which  one  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments condemns  pride,  boasting,  drunkenness,  unthank- 
fulness,  love  of  pleasure,  anger,  filthy  talk,  impatience, 
variance,  selfishness,  and  the  like  ?  Which  one  of  the  ten 
commandments  requires  us  to  feed  the  poor,  to  visit  the 
fatherless  and  the  widow,  to  sufier  long  and  be  kind,  to  be 


THE   DECALOGUE   EXAMD^D.  345 

gentle,  meek,  temperate,  to  pray,  to  repent,  to  go  to  meet- 
ing, to  forgive,  and  the  like  ?  No,  the  decalogue  does  no 
such  thing,  because  it  was  made  for  no  such  purpose.  It 
was  merely  prohibitory  in  its  nature.  The  man  who  merely 
did  nothing,  who  simply  avoided  crime,  kept  that  law.  But 
the  law  of  God,  by  which  a  Christian  must  live,  requires  him 
to  do,  and  to  do  much.  He  must  love  God,  love  his  neish- 
bor,  love  his  enemies,  visit  the  widow  and  the  needy,  suffer 
wrong,  be  patient,  entertain  strangers,  and  be  active  in  every 
good  work. 

It  requires  unceasing  activity  and  the  consecration  of  all 
our  energies  to  good  works;  but  the  decalogue  requires 
nothing  but  to  avoid  open  crime.  The  decalogue  alone  is 
never  called  the  law  of  God,  nor  the  law  of  the  Lord,  nor  a 
perfect  law,  nor  is  it  said  that  any  one  will  be  judged  by  it, 
or  that  it  is  binding  on  Christians. 

THE   CATHOLIC    DIVISION   OF    THE   DECALOGUE. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  have  made  a  great  ado  over  the 
way  Catholics  divide  and  number  the  ten  commandments. 
They  have  gotten  up  a  chart  showing  in  one  column  the  de- 
calogue "as  changed  by  the  pope"  and  in  another  as  "given 
by  God."  Here  they  show  how  "the  pope  has  changed  God's 
law  in  fulfillment  of  Dan.  7:  25."  According  to  this,  the 
Catholics  included  in  the  first  commandment  what  we  have 
in  the  first  two.  Then  our  third  is  their  second,  our  fourth 
their  third,  and  so  on  till  our  tenth  of  which  they  make  two. 
Adventists  claim  that  the  pope  did  this  to  get  rid  of  the 
second  commandment  and  to  change  the  Sabbath.  But  the 
whole  thing  is  utterly  false,  as  may  be  seen  under  the  word 
decalogue  in  any  religious  encyclopedia.  The  Schafl-Herzog 
Encyclopedia  says: 

'  'There  have  been  three  arranorements  of  the  decaloo^ue — 
the  Talmudic  (Jewish),  the  Augustinian  (adopted  by  the  Ro- 


346 


SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  KENOUNCED. 


TALMUDIC. 

1. 1  am  the  Lord,  etc.  (v.  2) 
3.  Against  idols  and  im- 
ages, (3-6). 

3.  Blasphemy. 

4.  The  Sabbath. 

5.  Filial  Obedience. 

6.  Murder. 

7.  Adultery. 

8.  Theft 

9.  False  witnese. 
10.  Coveting. 


HELLENISTIC. 

1.  Against  idols,  (v.  3). 

2.  Against  images,  (4-6). 
8.  Blasphemy. 

4.  The  Sabbath. 

5.  Filial  Obedience. 

6.  Murder. 

7.  Adultery. 

8.  Theft. 

9.  False  vritnesi. 
10.  CoYeting. 


man  Catholic  and  Lutheran  churches),  and  the  Hellenistic 
(Greek),  the  view  of  Philo,  Josephus,  Origen,  the  Greek  and 
Reformed  churches,  etc.  The  following  table  exhibits  the 
differences,  the  record  in  Ex.  20  being  used. 

AUGUSTINIAN. 

1.  Against  idols   ana  Im- 
agei,  (3  6). 

2.  Blasphemy. 

3.  The  Sabbath. 

4.  Filial  Obedience. 

5.  Murder. 

6.  Adultery. 

7.  Theft. 

8.  False  witness. 

9.  Thou  Shalt  not  covet  tby 
neighbor's  h.  (17). 

10.  The  rest  of  v.  17. 

It  will  be  seen  here  that  the  Catholics  have  simply  fol- 
lowed the  early  fathers  in  this,  while  we  have  followed  the 
Greeks.     The  pope  had  nothing  to  do  with  making  this  divi- 
sion of  the  commandments.     It  will  be  seen  that  according 
to  the  Talmudic  (Jewish)  division,  which  is  the  oldest  of  all» 
the  first  commandment  is  the  words,  "I  am  the  Lord  th}? 
God  which  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  etc. 
The  Jews,  the  Catholics,  and  the  Lutherans  include  in 
their  first  commandment  the  introductory  words,  "  I  am 
the  Lord  th}^  God,"  &c.,  just  as  all  should  do,  for  these  are 
the  most  important  words  of  all,  for  they  tell  who  gave 
that  law.     Adventists  expunge  these  to  save  their  theory. 

Thus,  as  I  learned  more,  I  began  to  see  on  every  hand 
how  the  arguments  of  the  Adventists  were  fallacious  and 
contrary  to  history  and  to  facts. 

EMINENT  AUTHORS  ON  THE  DECALOGUE. 

Many  of  the  most  eminent,  devout  and  learned  men  of 
the  church  have  held  that  the  decalogue  was  abolished, 
though  they  were  far  from  being  Antinomians. 


THE  DECALOGUE  EXAMINED.  347 

Among  these  were  the  apostolical  fathers,  Luther,  Calvin, 
Milton,  Baxter,  Bunyan,  Doddridge,  Whately,  Grotius, 
Locke,  Sherlock,  Watts,  Hessey,  Judson,  George  Dana 
Boardman,  and  a  host  of  such  men. 

Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  140,  says:  "The  law  promulgated 
on  Horeb  is  now  old  and  belongs  to  yourselves  (Jews)  alone: 
but  this  is  for  all  universally.  Now  law  placed  against  law 
has  abrogated  that  which  is  before  it."  Dialogue  with  Try- 
pho,  Chap.  11.  On  this  Elder  Andrew  says:  "That  Justin 
held  to  the  abrogation  of  the  ten  commandments  is  also 
manifested."    Testimony  of  the  Fathers,  page  43. 

Tertullian,  A.  D.  200,  says:  "The  abolition  of  the  an- 
cient law  we  fully  admit."  Against  Marcian,  Book  5.  Chap. 
2.  On  the  law  he  quotes  Col.  2:  16,  and  says:  "The  apos- 
tle here  teaches  clearly  how  it  has  been  abolished. "  Ibid. 
Chap.  19. 

Luther  says:  "The  ten  commandments  do  not  apply 
to  us  Gentiles  and  Christians,  but  only  to  the  Jews.  If  a 
preacher  wishes  to  force  you  back  to  Moses,  ask  him  whether 
you  were  brought  by  Moses  out  of  Egypt.  If  he  says  no, 
then  say:  'How,  then,  does  Moses  concern  me,  since  he 
speaks  (in  the  ten  words)  to  the  people  that  have  been  brought 
out  of  Egypt. '  In  the  New  Testament  Moses  comes  to  an 
end  and  his  laws  lose  their  force. "  See  Kitto's  Cyclopedia, 
Article  Law. 

Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  says:  "In  its  individual, 
or  what  is  usually  called  its  'moral'  aspect,  the  Law  bore 
equally  the  stamp  of  transitoriness.  *  *  *  It  seems 
clear  enough  that  its  formal,  coercive  authority  as  a  whole, 
ended  with  the  close  of  the  Jewish  dispensation."    Art.  Law. 

Kitto's  Cyclopedia  of  Biblical  Literature,  says  :  ' '  They 
[Christ  and  the  apostles]  even  clearly  indicate  that  the  moral 
law  is  by  no  means  excepted  when  they  speak  of  the  aboli' 
tion  of  the  law  in  general."     Art.  Law, 


348  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

The  recent  popular  commentary  of  Jamison,  Faussett  and 
Brown,  says  :  ' '  The  law  (including  especially  the  moral 
law  wherein  lay  the  chief  difficulty  in  obeying)  is  abrogated 
to  the  believer  as  far  as  it  was  a  compulsory,  accusing  code. " 
On  Col.  2:  16. 

The  Encyclopedia  Britannica  says:  ''  The  ten  command- 
ments do  not  apply  to  us  Gentiles  and  Christians,  but  only 
to  the  Jews."    On  the  Ten  Commandments. 

Says  Dr.  Dobbs,  Baptist:  "Nor  is  this  'new  and  danger- 
ous teaching.'  It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  re- 
formers of  the  sixteenth  century.  Calvin  argues  in  this 
strain  in  his  Institutes.  The  eminent  Baptist  scholar  and 
commentator,  John  Gill,  says,  writing  on  Ex.  20:  1,  2: 
'Verse  2  shows  that  this  body  of  laws  was  delivered  out  to 
the  people  of  Israel,  and  primarily  belongs  to  them;  for  of 
no  other  people  can  the  above  things  be  said.'  On  Matt.  5: 
17,  and  2  Cor.  3:  7-11,  Gill  is  emphatic  in  similar  teaching. 
Read  this,  on  the  latter  passage:  'The  law  is  that  which  is 
done  away;  not  merely  the  ceremonial  law,  or  the  judi- 
cial law;  but  the  whole  ministery  of  Moses;  and  particularly 
the  law  of  the  decalogue.'  1  close  by  citing  an  incident  re- 
lated by  Mrs.  Emily  C.  Judson,  in  the  Life  of  Adoniram 
Judson,  by  his  son.  Dr.  Edward  Judson.  Mrs.  Judson 
says  that  her  husband  once  reproved  her  for  introducing 
some  lessons  from  the  Old  Testament  into  her  Bible  classes, 
'comparing  it  to  groping  among  shadows  when  she  might 
just  as  well  have  the  noonday  sun.'  Mrs  Judson  in  relat- 
ing this  incident,  says:  'My  impression,  drawn  from  many 
a  long  talk,  is  that  he  considered  the  Old  Testament  as  the 
Scriptures  given  to  the  Jews  especially,  and  to  them  only. 
He  did  not  like  the  distinction  commonly  drawn  between 
the  moral  and  the  ceremonial  law,  and  sometimes  spoke 
with  an  earnestness  amounting  to  severity,  of  the  constant 
use  made  of  the  ten  commandments  by  Christians.     He 


THE  DECALOGUE  EXAMINED.  349 

thought  the  Old  Testament  very  important  as  explanatory 
and  corroborative  of  the  New — as  a  portion  of  the  inspira- 
tion which  came  froni  God,  etc.,  but  binding  on  Christians 
only  so  far  as  repeated  in  the  New  Testament.  He  used  to 
speak  of  the  Mosaic  law  as  fulfilled  in  Christ,  and  so  having 
no  further  power  w^hatever;  and  to  say  that  we  have  no 
right  to  pick  out  this  as  moral,  and  therefore  obligatory,  and 
the  other  as  ceremonial  and  no  longer  demanding  obedience. 
Practically  we  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Old  Testament 
law.'  "     Life  of  Judson,  pages  411,  412. 

Rev.  George  Dana  Boardman,  D.  D.,  the  eminent  Baptist 
divine,  in  his  recent  book  on  '^  The  Ten  Commandments," 
says:  * 'Although  the  decalogue,  in  its  spirit,  is  for  all  lands 
and  ages,  yet,  in  its  letter,  it  was  evidently  for  the  Jews. 
The  very  preamble  proves  the  assertion  :  '  God  spake  all 
these  words,  saying  :  I  am  Jehovah,  thy  God,  who  brought 
\hee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  or  bondage. ' 
Then  follow  the  ten  commandments,  based  on  the  unique 
fact  that  Jehovah  was  the  covenant  God  of  Israel."  Pages 
327-130. 

John  Milton  says:  ''With  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  those 
who  consider  the  decalogue  as  a  code  of  universal  morality, 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  such  an  opinion  should 
ever  have  prevailed;  these  commandments  being  evidently 
nothing  more  than  a  summary  of  the  whole  Mosaic  law  as 
tha  fourth  is  of  the  w^hole  ceremonial  law;  which  therefore 
can  contain  nothing  applicable  to  the  gospel  worship." 
Treatise  on  Christian  Doctrine,  VoL  1,  Book  2,  Chap.  7. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  TWO  COVENANTS. 

No  other  subject  perplexes  Adventists  so  much  as  the 
covenants.  They  dread  to  meet  it.  They  have  tried  vari- 
ous ways  to  explain  it  away,  but  they  are  not  satisfactory 
even  to  themselves.  I  have  been  there  and  know.  "  The 
abolition  of  the  Sinatic  covenant  carries  with  it  the  abolition 
of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  so  completely  that  no  authoritative 
trace  of  it  can  be  found  this  side  of  the  grave  of  our  risen 
Lord." 

Elder  Smith  says:  "If  the  ten  commandments  constitut- 
ed the  old  covenant,  then  they  are  forever  gone."  "This, 
therefore,  becomes  a  test  question."  Two  Covenants,  page 
5.  We  will  soon  see  the  force  of  this.  Jer.  31:  31,  32, 
says:  "Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will 
make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the 
house  of  Judah:  Not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made 
with  their  fathers,  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand 
to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt." 
•  Here  we  learn  these  facts  about  the  first,  or  old  covenant: 
1.  It  was  made  between  God  and  Israel.  2.  It  was  made 
when  he  brought  them  out  of  Egypt.  3.  A  new  covenant 
is  to  be  made.  4.  It  will  not  be  according  to  the  old  one. 
Adventists  and  all  agree  that  this  old  covenant  is  found  in 
Ex,  19  to  24.  We  all  know  that  the  ten  commandments, 
how  and  wh}^  they  were  given,  are  the  prominent  things  in 
those  five  chapters.  We  also  know  that  they  are  called 
"the  covenant,"  that  was  given  on  Sinai  or  Horeb.  Thus: 
"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  you  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire; 

(350) 


THE  TWO  COVENANTS.  361 

ye  heard  the  voice  of  the  words,  but  saw  no  similitude;  only 
ye  heard  a  voice.  And  he  declared  unto  you  his  covenant, 
which  he  commanded  you  to  perform,  even  ten  command- 
ments; and  he  wrote  them  upon  two  tables  of  stone." 
"The  Lord  our  God  made  a  covenant  with  us  in  Horebo 
The  Lord  made  not  this  covenant  with  our  fathers,  but  with 
us,  even  us,  who  are  all  of  us  here  alive  this  day."  Deut. 
4:  12,  13;  5:  2,  3.  Then  follows  the  ten  commandments  as 
the  covenant  named.  Again  :  ' '  The  tables  of  stone,  even 
the  tables  of  the  covenant  which  the  Lord  made  with  you. " 
Deut.  9:9.  So  also,  ' '  and  he  wrote  upon  the  tables  the 
words  of  the  covenant,  the  ten  commandments."  Ex.  34: 
28.  Surely  this  is  plain  enough  for  a  common  man.  What 
is  a  covenant?  Webster  says:  '^A  mutual  consent  or  agree- 
ment of  two  or  more  persons  to  do  or  forbear  some  act  or 
thing;  a  contract."  As  the  decalogue  alone  is  not  a  mutual 
agreement,  it  must  enter  into,  and  so  become  a  part  of,  some 
agreement,  to  be  called  the  covenant  as  it  is  so  frequently. 
Examining,  we  find  that  the  decalogue  was  the  very  basis  of 
the  covenant  at  Sinai;  the  chief  thing  in  the  covenant  be- 
tween God  and  Israel.  This  even  Elder  Smith  owns:  *'  It 
was  the  basis  of  the  whole  arrangement."  The  Two  Cove- 
nants, page  10.  Being  the  chief  thing  in  the  covenant,  it  is 
by  way  of  eminence  put  for  the  whole  and  so  called  "  the 
covenant. " 

Opening  to  Ex.  19,  we  read:  *^In  the  third  month,  when 
the  children  of  Israel  were  gone  forth  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  the  same  day  came  they  into  the  wilderness  of  Sinai. " 
Verse  1.  It  was  at  Sinai  as  they  came  out  of  Egypt. 
Moses  was  mediator.  Verse  3.  The  Lord  sends  him  to  say 
to  Israel:  "If  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  my 
covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me  above 
all  people:  for  all  the  earth  is  mine."  Verse  5.  Moses 
goes  and  repeats  this  offer  to  the  Jews:  they  say:     **A11 


352  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

that  the  Lord  hath  said  we  will  do."  Verse  8.  Here  was 
an  agreement,  a  covenant,  between  God  and  Israel.  They 
agree  to  obey  his  voice.  He  agrees  to  bless  them.  Next 
they  prepare  to  hear  his  voice.  Verses  9-25.  In  Chap.  20 
God  speaks  the  ten  commandments  and  follows  them  with 
various  precepts  through  Moses  to  the  end  of  chapter  23, 
closing  with  a  promise  to  bless  their  bread  and  water,  to 
take  away  sickness  from  them,  to  drive  out  the  Canuanites 
and  give  them  the  land.  Chapter  24:  1-8,  relates  how 
Moses  then  rehearsed  to  the  people  '*  all  the  words  of  the 
Lord  and  all  the  judgments."  Again  they  agree  to  obey. 
Verse  3.  Then  *'  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the 
Lord"  in  a  book.  Verse  4.  Assembling  the  people  again, 
he  read  ''  the  book  of  the  covenant  "  to  them,  and  the  third 
time  they  say,  '^  All  that  the  Lord  hath  said  we  will  do." 
Verse  7.  ''  And  Moses  took  the  blood  and  sprinkled  it  on 
the  people,  and  said,  '  behold  the  blood  of  the  covenant, 
which  the  Lord  hath  made  with  you  concernins;  all  these 
words.'  "  Verse  8.  That  closed  the  covenant.  We 
know  that  this  was  the  first,  or  old,  covenant,  for  Paul, 
quoting  this  very  verse,  says  it  was.  Heb.  9: 18-20.  That 
settles  it. 

How  much  did  the  covenant  embrace  ?  Only  one  truth- 
ful answer  can  be  given,  viz.  All  included  in  the  record  from 
Ex.  19:  1  to  Ex.  24:  8,  for  this  is  the  covenant  in  detail 
written  out.  Is  the  decalogue  included  in  it  ?  As  well  deny 
that  the  sun  shines,  for  there  it  is  written  out  in  full  in  the 
very  heart  of  the  covenant.  Ex.  20:  1-17.  As  Smith  said 
above,  *'Itwas  the  basis  of  the  whole  arrangement."  It 
was  so  prominent  a  part  of  the  covenant  that  it  alone  is  put 
for  the  whole  covenant,  as  we  often  speak  of  seeing  a  vessel, 
a  house,  or  a  river,  when  we  saw  only  a  part  of  it.  Hence 
the  stones  on  which  the  decalogue  was  written  are  called 
'*the  tables  of  the  covenant,"  Deut.  9:  9;  the  book  ir  which 


THE  TWO  COVENANTS.  353 

it  was  written  was  called  '*  the  book  of  the  covenant,"  Ex 
24:  7;  the  ark  in  which  it  was  deposited  was  called  "the  ark 
of  the  covenant,"  Deut.  31:  26. 

But  Ex.  19-24,  is  only  an  epitome  of  the  covenant;  for  all 
the  subsequent  teachings  of  Moses  are  only  a  further  ex- 
planation of  it  and  belonged  to  it.  Indeed,  it  gave  its  name 
to  the  whole  Old  Testament,  that  is.  Old  Covenant. 

This  covenant  was  only  national  and  temporal,  given  only 
to  the  Jews  and  referred  only  to  earthly  blessings.  It  made 
no  reference  to  the  future  life.  Dr.  Scott  says:  "The  na- 
tional covenant  with  Israel  was  here  meant.  *  *  *  It 
was  an  engagement  of  God,  to  give  Israel  possession  of 
Canaan,"  etc.  "It  did  not  refer  to  the  final  salvation  of  in 
dividuals."    On  Ex.  19:  5. 

Now  notice  how  plainly  and  how  repeatedly  the  ten  com- 
mandments are  called  '  'the  covenant, "  which  God  gave  at 
Sinai  to  Israel  when  he  brought  them  out  of  Egypt. 

"And  he  declared  unto  you  his  covenant,  which  he  com- 
manded you  to  perform,  even  ten  commandments;  and  he 
wrote  them  upon  two  tables  of  stone."    Deut.  4:  13. 

**When  I  was  gone  up  into  the  mount  to  receive  the 
tables  of  stone,  even  the  tables  of  the  covenant  which  the 
Lord  made  with  you."  Deut.  9:  9.  What  covenant  was 
on  the  tables  of  stone  ?  The  one  the  Lord  made  with  them. 
Again  he  tells  when  it  was  made  and  what  it  was:  "The  Lord 
our  God  made  a  covenant  with  us  in  Horeb.  The  Lord 
made  not  this  covenant  with  our  fathers,  but  with  us,  even 
us,  who  are  all  of  us  here  alive  this  day.  The  Lord  talked 
with  you  face  to  face  in  the  mount  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
fire  (I  stood  between  the  Lord  and  you  at  that  time,  to  shew 
you  the  word  of  the  Lord:  for  ye  were  afraid  by  reason  of 
the  fire,  and  went  not  up  into  the  mount),  saying,  I  am  the 
Lord  thy  God,  which  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt, 
from  the  house  of  bondage.     Thou  shalt  have  none  other 


354       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  KENOUNCED. 

gods  before  me."  Deut.  5:  2-7.  So  he  goes  on  giving  ihe 
ten  commandments.     That  ought  to  settle  it. 

*'And  the  Lord  said  mi  to  Moses,  Write  thou  these  words: 
for  after  the  tenor  of  these  words  I  have  made  a  covenant 
with  thee  and  with  Israel.  And  he  was  there  with  the  Lord 
forty  days  and  forty  nights;  he  did  neither  eat  bread  nor  drink 
water.  And  he  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words  of  the 
covenant,  the  ten  commandments."  Ex.  34:  27,  28.  If  that 
is  not  plain  enough,  what  would  be  ? 

**There  was  nothing  in  the  ark  save  the  two  tables  of 
stone,  which  Moses  put  there  at  Horeb,  when  the  Lord 
made  a  covenant  with  the  children  of  Israel,  when  they 
came  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt." 

"And  I  have  set  there  a  place  for  the  ark,  wherein  is^  the 
covenant  of  the  Lord,  which  he  made  with  our  fathers  wnen 
he  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  1  Kings, 
8:  9-21. 

'*Andin  it  have  I  put  the  ark,  wherein  is  the  covenant  of 
the  Lord,  that  he  made  with  the  children  of  Israel."  2 
Chron.  6:  11. 

This  shuts  off  all  possible  doubt  as  to  what  the  covenant 
was.  1.  There  was  nothing  in  the  ark  except  the  tables  of 
stone.  2.  Yet  in  that  ark  was  "the  covenant  of  the  Lord 
which  he  made  with  Israel  when  he  brought  them  out  of 
Egypt."  That  certainly  was  the  ten  commandments. 
Elder  Smith  says:  "If  the  ten  commandments  constituted 
the  old  covenant,  then  they  are  forever  gone."  Two  Cove- 
nants, page  5.     So  they  are  indeed  as  we  will  now  see. 

THAT   COVENANT  IS  DONE   AWAY. 

As  we  have  seen,  Jeremiah,  Chap.  31: 31-34,  foretold  that 
the  Lord  would  make  a  new  covenant  not  according  to  the 
old  one.  Paul  quotes  this  in  full  and  says  it  is  fulfilled  in 
the  gospel,  thus:     "But  now  hath  he  obtained  a  more  excel- 


THE   TWO   COVENANTS.  355 

lent  ministry,  by  hovv^  much  also  he  is  the  mediator  of  a  bet- 
ter covenant,  which  was  established  upon  better  promises. 
For  if  that  first  covenant  had  been  faultless,  then  should  no 
place  have  been  sought  for  the  second.  For  finding  fault 
with  them,  he  saith.  Behold,  the  daj^s  come,  saith  the  Lord, 
when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel 
and  with  the  house  of  Judah:  Not  according  to  the  cove- 
nant that  I  made  with  their  fathers,  in  the  day  when  I  took 
them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt; 
because  they  continued  not  in  my  covenant,  and  I  regarded 
them  not,  saith  the  Lord.  For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I 
will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord,  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in 
their  hearts;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be 
to  me  a  people.  And  they  shall  not  teach  every  man  his 
neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying.  Know  the 
Lord,  for  all  shall  know  me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest. 
For  I  ^vill  be  merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and  their  sins 
and  their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more.  In  that  he 
saith,  a  new  covenant,  he  hath  made  the  first  old.  Now  that 
which  decayeth  and  waxeth  old  is  ready  to  vanish  away." 
Heb.  8:  6-13. 

Notice  the  points  in  this.  1.  Jesus  is  mediator  of  a  bet- 
ter covenant  than  the  old.  Verse  6.  Then  we  have  some- 
thing better  than  the  decalogue.  2.  The  new  is  establishe<l 
on  better  promises  than  the  old,  which  as  we  have  seen, 
were  all  temporal.  See  Ex.  23:  22-33.  But  the  promises 
of  the  new  covenant  are  all  spiritual.  They  are  (1)  God's 
laws  are  to  be  in  their  hearts.  (2.)  All  shall  know^  the  Lord, 
as  only  converted  souls  will  be  admitted;  whereas  under  the 
old,  every  member  of  the  nation,  good  or  bad,  was  a  citi- 
zen. (3.)  God  will  forgive  and  forget  all  their  sins,  and 
so  they  will  all  be  saints  and  heirs  of  heaven.  (4.)  Paul  says 
that  if  the  first  covenant  had  been  faultless,  no  place  woulJ 


366  SEVENTH-BAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

have  been  sought  for  a  second.  This  shows  that  the  first 
covenant  was  always  imperfect.  Hence  the  Lord  says  he 
will  make  a  new  one,  not  according  to  the  old  one.  Then  we 
cannot  have  the  old  decalogue  right  over  again  unchanged. 
Finally,  Paul  says  the  first  is  made  old  and  is  ready  to  van- 
ish away.  That  ends  the  old  covenant,  the  one  from  Sinai, 
the  ten  commandments  as  we  have  proved. 

In  2  Cor.  3  Paul  makes  it  even  plainer  still  that  the  dec 
alogue  has  been  removed. 

Verse  3.  "Ye  are  manifestly  declared  to  be  the  epistle  of 
Christ  ministered  by  us,  written  not  with  ink,  but  with  the 
spirit  of  the  living  God ;  not  in  tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshly 
tables  of  the  heart.  6.  Who  also  hath  made  us  able  minis- 
ters of  the  new  testament  [covenant]  not  of  the  letter,  but 
of  the  spirit:  for  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life. 
7.  But  if  the  ministration  of  death,  written  and  engraven  in 
stones,  was  glorious,  so  that  the  children  of  Israel  could  not 
steadfastly  behold  the  face  of  Moses  for  the  glory  of  his 
countenance;  which  glory  was  to  be  done  away;  8.  How 
shall  not  the  ministration  of  the  spirit  be  rather  glorious  ? 
9.  For  if  the  ministration  of  condemnation  be  glory,  much 
more  doth  the  ministration  of  righteousness  exceed  in  glory. 
11.  For  if  that  which  is  done  away  was  glorious,  much  more 
that  which  remaineth  is  glorious.  13.  And  not  as  Moses, 
which  put  a  vaJil  over  his  face,  that  the  children  of  Israel 
could  not  steadfastly  look  to  the  end  of  that  which  is  abol- 
ished: 14.  But  their  minds  were  blinded:  for  until  this  day 
remaineth  the  same  vail  untaken  away  in  the  reading  of  the 
Old  Testament;  which  vail  is  done  away  in  Christ." 

Observe  the  following  points  :  1.  Verse  3  refers  to  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah  that  a  new  covenant  would  supercede 
the  old  one  on  stones.  Now  Paul  says  it  is  not  written  with 
ink  as  the  law  of  Moses  was  in  a  book,  nor  on  stones  as  the 
decalogue  was,  but  by  the  spirit  in  the  heart.     The  law  in 


THE  TWO  COVENANTS.  367 

the  book  and  on  stones  have  both  gone.  2.  Verse  6:  he 
says  the  apostles  do  not  minister  the  letter  but  the  spirit. 
"  The  letter  refers  exclusively  to  the  law.''''  ''  The  context 
shows  that  by  the  letter  he  meant  the  old  covenant  and  by 
the  spirit  the  new."  Pulpit  Commentary,  pages  59-80. 
3.  To  put  it  beyond  all  doubt,  as  to  what  he  means,  Paul, 
in  verse  7,  specifies  "the  ministration  of  death  written  and 
engraven  in  stones.''''  Surely  we  know  that  this  was  the 
decalogue.  This  he  calls  ''the  ministration  of  death."  4. 
In  verses  8  and  9  he  calls  the  gospel  "the  ministration  of  the 
spirit"  and  "the  ministration  of  righteousness"  and  says 
that  it  exceeds  in  glory  the  old  ministration  of  death.  5. 
To  put  it  beyond  doubt  that  he  means  the  decalogue,  he  re- 
fers to  the  vail  which  Moses  put  over  his  face  when  he  came 
down  with  the  tables  of  stone  in  his  hands.  Compare  verse 
13  with  Ex.  34:  27-35.  6.  Twice  Paul  directly  names  that 
w^hich  was  "  written  in  stone,"  verses  3  and  7;  once  he  says 
we  do  not  minister  the  letter,  verse  6;  he  says  that  that 
which  was  engraven  in  stones  was  the  ministration  of  death, 
verse  7,  and  the  "ministration  of  condemnation,"  verse  9; 
then  he  says  this  was  "abolished,"  verse  13,  and  three  times 
he  says  it  "was  done  away,"  verses  7,  11,  14.  7.  Compare 
verses  7  and  11.  "The  ministration  of  death  written  and 
engraven  in  stones  was  glorious"  and  "that  which  is  done 
away  was  glorious;"  the  very  thing  which  was  written  in 
stones  in  verse  7,  is  said  to  "be  done  away"  in  verse  11. 
8.  In  verse  7  the  ten  commandments  are  evidently  taken 
to  represent  the  whole  Mosaic  dispensation.  If  these,  the 
toundation  of  the  whole  system,  are  removed,  then  of  course 
all  the  system  must  go  w4th  them.  "The  ten  command- 
ments thus  written  here  represent  the  whole  Mosaic 
economy."    Notes  of  Am  Tract  Society  on  verse  7. 

Adventists  have  tried  to  save  their  theory  here  by  saying 
tnat  in  verse  7,  ' '  ministration "  was  not  what  was  ' '  en- 


358  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

graven  "  in  stones;  but  that  *'  death  "  is  what  was  written 
there.  This  will  not  do.  In  the  Greek  the  word  for  en- 
graven exactly  agrees  with  ministration  but  does  not  agree 
with  deaths  hence  the  decalogue  is  what  is  called  "the  min- 
istration," and  that  was  done  away.  Dr.  Clarke  says  on  this 
verse:  *'  Here  the  apostle  evidently  intends  the  law." 
"This  ministration  of  death,  the  ten  commandments,  writ- 
ten on  stones,  a  part  of  the  Mosaic  institution,  being  put  for 
the  whole,  was  glorious." 

The  Pulpit  Commentary  on  this  verse  says  :  ' '  Literally, 
engraved  in  letters  on  stones  (Ex.  31:  18).  The  reference 
shows  that,  in  speaking  of  '  the  letter,'  St.  Paul  was  only 
thinking  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  indeed,  specifically  of  the 
decalogue."  "The  ministration  of  death  was  written  and 
engraven  on  stone  in  the  form  of  ten  commandments." 
liead  with  verse  7  Ex.  31:  18;  32:  16.  "Tables  of  stone 
written  With  the  finger  of  God."  "The  writing  of  God, 
graven  upon  the  tables."  How  can  a  candid  man  deny  that 
Paul  meant  this  very  thing,  the  decalogue  ? 

To  the  Galatians  Paul  also  writes  that  the  covenant  of 
Sinai  has  gone.  Vl  \s\\\  be  seen  that  he  uses  "covenant"  and 
"law"  as  synonymous,  showing  that  the  law  was  the  covenant. 

* '  Tell  me,  ye  that  desire  to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye  not 
hear  the  law  ?  For  it  is  written,  that  Abraham  had  two 
sons,  the  one  by  a  bondmaid,  the  other  by  a  free  woman. 
But  he  who  was  of  the  bondwoman  was  born  after  the  flesh; 
but  he  of  the  free  woman  was  by  promise.  Which  things 
are.  an  allegory:  for  these  are  the  two  covenants;  the  one 
from  the  mount  Sinai,  which  gendereth  to  bondage,  which 
is  Agar."     Gal.  4:  21-24. 

Here  the  old  law  covenant  of  Sinai  is  declared  to  be 
"  bondage  "  and  he  says  "  Be  not  entangled  again  with  the 
yoke  of  bondage."     Chap.  5:1. 

So  in  Heb.  12:  18-24,  Paul  distinctly  says  that  Christians 


THE   TWO   COVENANTS.  359 

do  not  go  to  Sinai  and  the  thunders  of  the  law,  but  they 
come  to  Jesus  and  the  new  covenant.  Read  it  all.  Here 
are  a  few  sentences:  "  For  ye  are  not  come  unto  the  mount 
that  might  be  touched,  and  that  burned  with  fire,  nor  unto 
blackness,  and  darkness,  and  tempest.  And  so  terrible  was 
the  sight,  that  Moses  said,  I  exceedingly  fear  and  quake: 
But  ye  are  come  unto  Mount  Sion.  And  to  Jesus  the 
mediator  of  the  new  covenant.'^ 

Adventists  are  always  dwelling  upon  the  terrible  scenes 
at  Sinai  at  the  giving  of  the  law  and  pointing  others  there; 
but  Paul  says,  No,  do  not  go  there;  but  to  Mount  Sion,  to 
Jesus  and  the  new  covenant. 

So  Jeremiah  predicted  the  rejection  of  the  covenant  in  the 
ark  and  that  instead  of  it,  men  would  seek  to  the  name  of 
the  Lord  at  Jerusalem  where  the  gospel  went  forth. 
"  In  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  they  shall  say  no  more, 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord:  neither  shall  it  come 
to  mind;  neither  shall  they  remember  it;  neither  shall  they 
visit  it;  neither  shall  that  be  done  any  more.  At  that  time 
they  shall  call  Jerusalem  the  throne  of  the  Lord;  and  all 
the  nations  shall  be  gathered  unto  it,  to  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  to  Jerusalem."    Jer.  3: 16,  17. 

Adventists  are  trying  to  revive  the  very  thing  the  Lord 
said  should  be  forgotten,  "  the  ark  of  the  covenant."     All 
their  study  and  worship  is  centered  around  that  just  as  of 
old  with  tke  Jews.     But  the  eflbrt  is  vain.     God  has  said  it. 
Since  the  cross  Jesus  and  Jerusalem  have  been  where  all 
eyes  have  turned  while  the  ark  and  old  covenant  are  for- 
gotten, just  as  the  Lord  said  it  would  be.     So  Isa.  2:3; 
"  Out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law  and  the  word  of  the 
Lord  from  Jerusalem."     There  is  where  we  now  go  for 
the  law,  not  to  the  ark  or  to  Sinai. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

WHAT  LAW  ARE  CHRISTIANS  UNDER  ? 

When  God  speaks,  is  it  not  sin  to  disobey  ?  Surely  it  is. 
Paul  says:  *'God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  man- 
ners spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets, 
hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  son."  Heb. 
1:  1,  2.  This  says  that  God  hath  spoken  to  men  in  various 
ways  at  different  times.  No  matter  in  what  way  God's  will 
was  expressed,  it  would  have  been  sin  to  disobey.  "If  the 
law  of  Sinai  is  gone,  then  there  is  no  law,  no  sin,''  say  Ad- 
ventists.  Indeed,  then  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  reveal 
his  will  to  men,  except  in  those  exact  words,  letter  for  letter! 
Who  believes  such  an  absurdity  ?  The  whole  controversy 
is  reduced  to  simply  this:  Has  God  in  the  New  Testament, 
plainly  and  fully  revealed  his  will  to  men  and  told  them 
what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong?  Is  the  will  of  God  re- 
vealed through  his  Son  in  the  New  Testament  higher  author- 
ity than  the  Old  Testament,  or  is  it  not  ?  Are  the  teachings 
of  the  New  Testament  to  be  modified  to  harmonize  with  the 
letter  of  the  law  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  are  the  precepts 
of  the  Old  Testament  to  be  modified  to  harmonize  with  the 
gospel  ?  The  latter,  certainly.  But  the  gospel  nowhere  en- 
joins the  seventh  day. 

Then  is  not  the  word  of  thej  Lord  Jesus  Christ  law  ? 
Could  there  be  any  higher  law?  Said  Jesus,  "land  my 
Father  are  one,"  John  10:  30,  and  "All  men  should  honor 
the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father."  John  5:  23.  Then 
the  words  of  Christ  are  to  be  honored  as  highly  as  the  words 
of  God.     They  are  law  the  same  as  God's  words  are.     God 

(360) 


WHAT   LAW   ARE   CnRISTIANS   UNDER?  361 

promised  to  raise  up  Christ  and  put  his  words  in  his  mouth, 
and  he  should  speak  as  God  commanded  him,  Deut.  18:  18. 
Jesus  said  his  Father  sent  him  and  commanded  him  what  to 
say,  John  12:  19,  50.  "The  word  that  I  have  spoken,  the 
same  shall  judge  him  at  the  last  day,"  verse  48.  Then  we 
shall  be  judged  by  the  teachings  of  Christ,  not  by  the  old 
law.  Christians  will  be  judged  by  the  gospel.  "In  the 
day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus 
Christ  according  to  my  gospel."  Rom.  2:  16.  God  said, 
"Hear  ye  him,"  Matt.  17:  5.  All  authority  in  heaven  and 
in  earth  is  given  to  him,  Matt.  28:  18.  "He  taught  them  as 
one  having  authority,"  Matt.  7:  29.  He  has  a  law.  Gal.  6:  2. 
"Fulfill  the  law  of  Christ."  "The  isles  shall  wait  for  his 
law."  Isa.  42:  4.  We  are  under  his  law,  1  Cor.  9:  21. 
"Under  law  to  Christ,"  Rev.  Ver.,  "Under  Christ's  law," 
Diaglott.  "Under  the  law  of  the  Messiah,"  Syriac.  The 
grandest  summary  of  moral  and  religious  truth  the  world 
ever  heard  was  the  sermon  on  the  Mount,  Matt.  5-7.  It  is 
as  much  superior  to  the  decalogue  as  gospel  is  superior 
to  Judaism.  Here  Christ  forbids  murder,  verses  21,  22 
adultery,  verses  27,  28;  swearing,  verse  34;  hypocrisy,  6 
1-5;  covetousness,  6:  19-34;  and  every  wrong  act,  7 
12.  Would  it  not  be  sin  to  disobey  the  precepts  of 
Christ? 

Jesus  gave  commandments  to  his  disciples.  Acts,  1:  2,  and 
commanded  them  to  teach  them  to  all  nations.  Matt.  28: 
18-20.  We  are  to  keep  his  commandments.  John  14:  15, 
21;  15:  10.  Then  would  it  not  be  sin  to  break  them  ?  Who 
dare  deny  it?  "Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  by  the 
will  of  God,"  Eph.  1:  1,  said,  "Put  away  lying,"  "sin  not," 
and-J 'steal  no  more,"  Eph.  4:  25-28,  and,  "The  things  I 
write  unto  you  are  the  commandments  of  the  Lord."  1  Cor. 
14:  37.  And  yet  Adventists  will  say,  that  if  the  old  law  is 
gone,  there  are  no  commandments  against  lying,  stealing, 


362  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

etc.  We  know  better,  as  the  above  teaches.  Indeed,  Paul 
says,  *'I  kept  back  nothing  that  was  profitable  unto  you," 
*  'for  I  have  not  shunned  to  declare  unto  you  all  the  counsel 
of  God."  Acts  20:  20,  27.  Every  sin  of  which  the  human 
heart  is  guilty,  is  plainly  forbidden  in  the  New  Testament 
over  and  over  by  the  authority  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
as  all  know.  Yet  nothing  condemns  sin  but  the  deca- 
logue! 

The  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  law,  every  moral  principle  in  it, 
is  reiterated  over  and  over  in  the  gospel,  with  all  the  author- 
ity of  the  Son  of  God.  Not  a  Christian  duty  can  be  named 
which  is  not  taught  in  the  New  Testament.  Not  a  single 
thing  is  forbidden  by  the  Old  Testament  which  it  would  be 
wrong  for  a  Christian  to  do,  which  is  not  also  forbidden  in 
the  New,  in  some  ')rm.  Excepting  the  Sabbath,  the  other 
nine  commandments  are  in  the  New  Testament,  either  in  the 
same  words  or  in  substance. 

Then  is  the  Old  Testament  to  be  thrown  away  ?  God  for- 
bid. It  should  be  received  as  the  inspired  word  of  God,  a 
mine  of  precious  truth;  but  it  must  be  studied  in  the  light  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  modified  by  it.  Nothing  should 
be  required  of  Christians  simply  because  it  is  found  in  the 
law  of  the  Old  Testament.  To  bind  our  consciences,  it  must 
be  required  by  the  New  Testament.  Here  the  seventh  day 
fails  entirely,  for  there  is  no  requirement  in  all  the 
New  Testament  to  keep  it;  but  its  abrogation  is  plainly 
taught. 

**THE   COMMANDMENTS  OF    GOD"   IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  have  much  to  say  about  "the 
commandments  of  God,"  Rev.  14:  12,  and  claim  that  these 
are  the  ten  commandments.  With  them  "the  command- 
ments" always  means  just  the  decalogue,  nothing  more. 
Wherever  they  find  this  term  they  thus  apply  it.     But  such 


WHAT  LAW  ARE  CHRISTIANS  UNDER?  363 

a  position  is  wholly  erroneous.  There  are  over  800  texts 
where  the  phrase,  "the  commaudments,"  in  its  various  forms 
is  used.  I  have  carefully  examined  every  one  of  them.  I 
find  that  it  is  a  general  term  for  all  the  requirements  of  the 
Bible.  According  to  my  best  judgment,  in  forty-nine  cases 
out  of  fifty  it  means  something  more  than  the  ten  com- 
mandments.    Let  the  reader  examine  the  following  texts: 

Lev.  22  refers  wholly  to  the  duties  of  the  priests  and  the 
offering  of  sacrifices.  What  the  Lord  commanded  about 
these  he  calls  his  "commandments."  Verse  31.  In  Deut. 
11:  27,  28,  Avhat  Moses  commanded  is  called  "the  command- 
ments of  God."  Li  Deut.  26:  12,  13,  the  term  is  used  of 
the  law  of  tithing.  In  Deut  28:  1,  it  is  applied  to  all  that 
Moses  commanded  them.  With  a  concordance,  any  person 
can  readily  find  hundreds  of  cases  where  this  term  means 
something  more  than  the  decalogue.  When  Jesus  was 
questioned  about  the  law  he  named  as  the  greatest  "com- 
mandments," two  entirel}^  outside  of  the  ten.  See  Matt.  22: 
35-40. 

So  the  precepts  of  Christ  and  His  apostles  are  often  called 
commandments.  Jesus  says:  "The  Father  which  sent  me, 
he  gave  me  a  commandment  what  I  should  say  "  John  12: 
49.  If  God  gave  Christ  commandments,  and  He  gave  them 
to  His  church,  would  they  not  be  the  commandments  of 
God  ?  Certainly.  The  old  dispensation  was  passing  away, 
and  the  Lord  was  proclaiming  the  commandments  of  God 
for  the  new  dispensation,  the  gospel.  So  in  the  great 
commission  He  said,  "Teach  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  3'ou."  Matt.  28:  20. 

Again  Jesus  said,  John  14:  15,  21,  "If  ye  love  me,  keep 
my  commandments."  ''He  that  hath  my  commandments, 
and  kt^peth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me;  and  he  that 
loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of  my  Father,  and  I  will  love  him- 
and  wi  11  manifest  myself  to  him. "   How  can  we,  in  the  face 


364  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

of  these  plain  texts,  say  that  Jesus  gave  no  commandmants  1 
Who  is  it  that  loves  Christ  ?  He  that  keeps  his  command- 
ments. This  is  what  it  is  in  the  New  Testament  to  be  a 
commandment  keeper.  So  again  John  15:  10,  14:  "If  ye 
keep  my  commandments,  ye  shall  abide  in  my  love;  even  as 
I  have  kept  my  Father's  commandments  and  abide  in  hi» 
love."  "Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I  command 
you." 

If,  then,  we  do  what  Jesus  commands  us,  is  not  that 
enough  ?  and  shall  we  not  be  safe  and  sure  of  his  love  and 
the  love  of  his  Father  ?  But  where  did  Jesus  ever  com- 
mand to  keep  the  seventh  day  ?  Nowhere.  So  Luke  says 
he  was  taken  up,  "after  that  he  through  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  given  commandments  unto  the  apostles  whom  he  had 
chosen."  Acts  1:  2.  If  Jesus  gave  commandments  through 
the  Holy  Ghost,  would  they  not  be  the  commandments  of 
God  ?  Are  not  these  equal  to  those  given  through  Moses  ? 
Now  hear  Paul  as  to  what  are  the  commandments  in  tht 
gospel:  "If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet, 
or  spiritual,  let  him  acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I 
write  unto  you  are  the  commandments  of  the  Lord. "  1  Cor. 
14:  37. 

Then  all  Paul's  writings  are  "the  commandments  of 
God."  And  the  Apostle  says.  Let  those  who  are  spiritual 
acknowledge  it.  Will  our  Seventh-day  brethren  acknowl- 
edge it?  They  may  see  a  new  meaning  in  "the  command- 
ments of  God,"  Rev.  14:  12,  if  they  will.  Again  Paul 
says,  "For  yo  know  what  commandments  we  gave  you  by 
the  Lord  Jesus,"  1  Thess.  4:  2.  Then  the  Apostles  did  give 
commandments  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Peter 
bears  a  similar  testimony.  2  Peter  3:  2.  "That  ye  may  be 
mindful  of  the  words  which  were  spoken  before  by  the  holji 
prophets  and  of  the  commandments  of  us  the  apostles  of 
the  Lord  and  Savior."     Entole^  the  Greek  word  for  com* 


WHAT  LAW   ARE   CHRISTIANS   UNDER?  365 

raandment,  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  in  its  singular  and 
plural  forms,  sixty-eight  times.  In  at  least  forty-eight  of 
these  cases  it  cannot  mean  the  decalogue,  and  in  over  half  of 
the  others  it  is  used  in  a  general  way.  In  not  a  single  case 
is  it  certain  that  it  means  all  the  ten  and  nothing  more. 
There  is  not  a  hint  that  it  means  the  decalogue  in  an}^  one  of 
the  three  passages  where  it  occurs  in  Revelation.  To  claim 
that  it  does  is  to  assume  without  evidence  the  very  point  to 
be  proved.  John,  who  wrote  the  book  of  Revelation,  also 
wrote  the  gospel  of  John  and  the  three  epistles  of  John. 
He  uses  the  word  "commandments,"  plural  and  singular, 
twenty-eight  times,  and  in  not  a  single  case  does  it  refer  to 
the  ten  commandments;  but  in  nearly  every  case,  if  not  in 
all,  it  refers  to  the  commandments  of  Jesus.  See  John  14: 
15,  21;  15:  10;  1  John  2:  1-5;  3:  22-24;  4:  21;  5:  1-3.  And 
naturally  we  would  suppose  that  he  means  the  same  thing  by 
commandments  in  Rev.  14:  12. 

As  Christ  is  our  "Lord  and  Master,"  John  13:  13,  the 
"Head"  of  the  church,  Eph.  1:22;  "All  and  in  all,"  Col. 
3:  11;  having  "all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,"  Matt.  28: 
18;  and  is  to  judge  the  world,  John  5:  22;  at  his  judgment 
seat,  Rom.  14:  10;  how  reasonable  that  he  should  give  the 
laws  to  that  church.  This  is  just  what  he  did  do.  Matt.  28, 
18-20;  Acts  1:  1,  2.  If  any  one  wdll  obey  the  teachings  of 
Christ  he  need  not  fear  about  his  salvation. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

FORTY-SEVEN   PROMINENT  TEXTS  USED  BY    SABBATA- 
RIANS  EXAMINED. 

For  the  convenience  of  the  reader,  we  will  arrange  here 
in  order  an  examination  of  all  the  prominent  texts  used  by 
Seventh-Day  Adventists  on  the  Sabbath  or  the  law. 
Where  the  text  has  been  fully  examined  in  the  body  of  the 
work,  we  will  refer  to  the  chapter  where  it  will  be  found. 

Gen.  2:  1-3.     See  Chapter  XIII.,  page  249. 

Gen.  26:  5.     Abraham  kept  the  Sabbath. 

Abraham  kept  God's  ' '  commandments  and  laws. "  This 
was  the  ten  commandments,  therefore  he  kept  the  Sabbath. 
Answer:  1.  They  assume  the  very  thing  to  be  proved,  viz: 
that  this  was  the  ten  commandments.  2.  This  was  430 
years  before  the  decalogue  was  given.  Gal.  3:  16,  17. 
How  could  he  keep  what  was  not  yet  given  ?  3.  Anything 
which  God  commanded  at  anytime  would  be  *'his  com- 
mandments," and  this  would  vary  with  circamstances- 
What  Moses  required  is  called  ''God's  commandments." 
Deut.  28:  1,  15.  Says  Paul,  "  What  I  write  unto  you  are 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord."  1  Cor.  14:  37.  "  Sacri- 
fice to  the  Lord  our  God  as  he  shall  command  us."  Ex.  8: 
27.  The  Lord's  directions  to  Noah  about  the  ark  were 
God's  commandments.  Gen.  6:  22.  To  circumcise  was 
one  of  the  commandments  of  God  to  Abraham,  which  he 
kept.  Gen.  21:  4.  So  Abraham  obeyed  all  God  told  him 
to  do.  Hence,  this  text  has  no  reference  to  the  ten  com- 
mandments, nor  to  the  Sabbath. 

Ex.  16:  23-30.     See  Chapter  XHL,  page  254. 

(366) 


SPECIAL  TEXTS  EXAMINED.  367 

Sx.  20:  1-17.     The  decalogue.     See  Chapter  XVIII. 

Ex.  31 :  13-17.     The  Sabbath  forever.    See  page  259. 

Lev.  23.     The  3'early  Sablxaths.     See  Chapter  XV. 

Lev.  23:  38.     ''  Beside  the  Sabbaths  of  the  Lord." 

It  is  claimed  by  Seventh-Da}-  Adventists  that  the  Lord 
here  separates  out  the  Sabbath  from  all  other  holy  days, 
showing  that  it  is  of  a  different  nature,  in  these  words, 
verses  37,  38:  ''Those  are  the  feasts  of  the  Lord:  *  *  * 
beside  the  Sabbaths  of  the  Lord."  Yes,  but  read  the  whole 
verse,  "Beside  the  Sabbaths  of  the  Lord,  and  beside  your 
gifts,  and  beside  all  your  vows,  and  beside  all  your  free-will 
offerings,  which  ye  give  unto  the  Lord."  Not  only  the  Sab- 
bath, but  gifts,  vows  and  offerings  are  also  excepted  with  the 
Sabbath  in  the  same  verse.  The  idea  is  this:  the  Sabbath, 
the  gifts,  vo\vs  and  offerings  are  of  regular  wxekly  or  daily 
occurrence,  w^hereas  the  other  holy  days  and  special  offerings 
were  to  come  only  once  a  year  at  stated  seasons.  When 
these  yearly  offerings  and  holy  days  came  at  the  same  time 
of  the  regular  daily  or  weekly  service  they  were  not  to  take 
the  place  of  the  regular  daily  and  weekly  services,  but  must 
be  observed  besides  all  these.  Any  one  can  see  that  this  is 
the  simple  meaning  of  the  words  "beside  the  Sabbaths  of 
the  Lord,  and  beside  your  gifts,"  etc.  The  idea  is  not  to 
distinguish  the  Sabbath  above  the  other  feasts,  but  to  say 
that  these  must  be  kept  in  addition  to  the  regular  service  of 
the  Sabbath  and  the  daily  offerings. 

Deut.  31:  24-26.  Two  laws,  one  in  the  ark  and  another 
in  the  side  of  it.     See  Chapter  XVII. ,  page  309. 

2  Kings  21:  8.  Two  laws.  "If  they  will  observe  to  do 
according  to  all  that  I  have  commanded  them,  and  according 
to  all  the  law  that  my  servant  Moses  commanded  them." 

It  is  claimed  that  this  shows  two  laws,  one  given  by  God, 
the  moral  law,  the  decalogue;  the  other  by  Moses,  the  cere- 
monial, the  one  written  in  the  book.     Well,  Moses  in  the 


368  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

book  gave  the  law,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  with  all  thy 
heart,"  Deut.  6:  5,  and  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself,"  Lev.  19:  18.  These,  then,  must  be  ceremonial  ! 
No,  there  is  no  difference  made  between  what  God  gave 
himself  or  gave  by  Moses.  Indeed,  the  greatest  command- 
ments of  all  he  gave  by  Moses.  Matt.  22:  36-40.  2  Kings 
21:  8,  is  loosely  worded,  that  is  all.  Read  the  same  text  in 
2  Chron.  33:  8.  "If  only  they  will  observe  to  do  all  that  I 
have  commanded  them,  even  all  the  law  and  the  statutes  and 
the  ordinances  by  the  hand  of  Moses."  Revised  Version. 
That  makes  it  plain.  God  gave  them  all  by  the  hand  of 
Moses.     See  also  Neh.  8:  14. 

1  Chron.  16: 15-18.     The  decalogue  for  1,000  generations. 

Adventists  clairn  that  this  covenant  is  the  ten  command- 
ments. Hence  it  was  given  to  the  patriarchs  and  must  be 
kept  for  ages  yet,  as  less  than  200  generations  have  passed 
since  Adam.  So  this  law  must  continue  at  least  800  genera- 
tions yet.  Answer:  1.  The  term  "a  thousand  generations" 
is  manifestly  an  expression  meaning  an  indefinitely  long 
time,  not  exactly  1000  generations,  no  more,  no  less.  If  the 
world  must  stand  800  generations  yet,  what  becomes  of  Ad- 
ventism!  So  they  can  not  take  it  literally  themselves. 
Hence  it  may  have  ended  ages  ago.  2.  As  this  is  poetry, 
verse  7,  the  license  of  poetry  is  used.  3.  The  "  covenant  " 
here  mentioned  is  not  the  covenant  of  ten  commandments, 
for  Moses  says  expressly  that  the  fathers  did  not  have  the 
covenant  of  the  decalogue.  Deut.  5:  2,  4.  But  this  cove- 
nant was  made  with  Abraham.  1  Chron.  16:  16.  4.  The 
covenant  here  referred  to  is  God's  promise  to  give  Canaan  to 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  See  verse  18.  * 'Saying,  unto 
thee  will  I  give  the  land  of  Canaan."  See  Gen.  15:  18,  26: 
3;  28:  13.     So  it  has  no  reference  to  the  decalogue. 

Neh.  9:  13,  14.     Two  laws. 

God  gave  them  one  set  of  laws  himself  and  then  gave  an- 


SPECIAL   TEXTS   EXAMINED.  369 

other  set  by  Moses.  Read  it.  Answer:  It  is  true  that  one 
part  of  the  law  was  given  in  one  way  and  another  part  in 
another  way.  But  this  neither  says  nor  intimates  that  there- 
fore they  were  different  laws  and  of  a  different  nature.  See 
remarks  on  2  Kings  21:  8. 

Ps.  19:  7.     The  law  perfect 

Adventists  constantly  quote  this  text  as  proof  that  the  ten 
commandments  are  a  perfect  law  and  hence  could  not  be 
changed. 

Ans^ver:  An  examination  of  this  text  will  answer  nine- 
tenths  of  all  their  law  texts  in  the  Bible.  So  we  will  make 
the  answer  here  and  refer  to  this  from  the  other  texts.  The 
grand  fallacy  of  all  their  arguments  is  the  assumption  that 
"  the  law  "  is  just  the  ten  commandments,  nothing  more, 
nothing  less.  Hence  they  ring  the  changes  on  "  the  law^^'' 
"  the  lavj^'^^  without  end.  But  remember  "  the  law  "  means 
the  whole  system  of  law  given  to  the  Jews  on  Sinai,  includ- 
ing moral,  civil  and  ceremonial  precepts,  sacrifices,  priest- 
hood, circumcision,  feasts,  etc.  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary, 
Art.  Law,  says  that  the  law  refers  ''in  nine  cases  out  of  ten 
to  the  Mosaic  law,  or  to  the  Pentateuch. "  Elder  Butler  con- 
fesses, ' '  The  term  '  the  law, '  among  the  Jews  generally  in- 
cluded the  five  books  of  Moses."  Law  in  Galatians,  page 
70.  Don't  foro'et  this  fact  and  vou  will  have  little  trouble 
with  Advent  arguments  on  ^'the  law." 

"The  law,"  "the  law  of  the  Lord,"  and  "the  law  of 
Moses,"  are  all  the  same  and  include  circumcision  and  sacri- 
fices. Proof:  Luke  2:  22,  23,  24,  27;  2  Chron.  31:  3.  Again: 
"The  law,"  "the  law  of  :Moses,"  "the  book  of  the  law,"  and 
"the  law  of  God,"  are  all  the  same.  Proof:  Neh.  8:  ^  2,  3, 
8,  14,  18. 

Now  what  is  meant  by  "  the  law  "  and  "  the  law  of  the 
Lord"  in  the  Psalms  ?  It  means  all  the  law  God  gave  Israel 
that  whinh  was  written  in  the  "  book  of  the  law."     Pro^  ' 


370  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  KENOUNCED. 

David  who  wrote  the  Psalms  was  king  of  Israel.  God  re- 
quired the  king  to  keep  a  copy  of  "  the  book  of  the  law" 
always  by  him  and  read  in  it  every  day  of  his  life.  Deut. 
17:  15-19.  The  first  Psalm  refers  to  this:  His  "  delight  is 
in  the  law  of  the  Lord;  and  in  his  law  doth  he  meditate  day 
and  night. "  Verse  2.  David  as  king  read  the  law  of  Moses 
every  day  and  to  this  he  refers  all  through  the  Psalms.  Ad- 
ventists  are  constantly  quoting  Ps.  119  as  meaning  only  the 
ten  commandments.  But  "the  law"  here  includes  the  whole 
law  God  gave  Israel,  moral,civil,  ceremonial, all.  Proof:  Verse 
128.  *'I  esteem  all  thy  precepts  concerning  all  things  to  be 
right.''  David  regarded  God's  precepts  concerning  tithes, 
sacrifices,  feasts,  public  worship,  moral  duties,  etc.  ,as  all  right. 
Nine-tenths  of  "  the  law  of  the  Lord"  Seventh-Day  Adven- 
tists  do  not  pretend  to  keep  any  more  than  Sunday  keepers 
do.     If,  then,  we  are  law-breakers,  so  are  they. 

It  is  probable  that  Ps.  19:  7,  has  a  wider  meaning  than 
even  the  Mosaic  law.  The  marginal  reading  is:  "The 
doctrine  of  the  Lord  is  perfect."  Dr.  Scott  on  this  verse 
says:  "The  word  here  translated  'law'  may  be  rendered 
doctrine^  and  be  understood  as  a  general  name  for  divine 
revelation,  as  then  extant,  the  law  of  Moses  being  the  prin- 
cipal part."  Dr.  Clarke,  the  Eclectic  Commentary,  and  all 
I  have  consulted  give  the  same  interpretation.  How  nar- 
row and  unauthorized,  then,  is  the  interpretation  which  con- 
fines this  text  to  simply  the  decalogue.  It  is  by  such 
unnatural  methods  that  the  seventh  day  is  sustained. 

Ps.  40:  8.  The  law  in  Jesus'  heart.  "Lo,  I  come.  *  * 
*     Thy  law  is  within  my  heart." 

This  refers  to  Christ.  Adventists  say  that  Jesus  kept  the 
law,  the  ten  commandments,  and  therefore  we  should. 
Answer.  1.  See  how  they  always  assume  that  "the  law"  is 
just  the  decalogue.  See  this  answered  above  on  Ps.  19:  7. 
2.  Jesus  kept  all  the  law  of  Moses,  just  as  other  Jews  did 


SPECIAL  TEXTS  EXAMINED.  371 

r)o  Adventists  do  it  ?  Do  they  keep  the  law  as  Jesus  did  ? 
No.  Then  their  argument  is  a  failure.  3.  Jesus  loved  all 
the  law  and  came  to  fulfill  it.  Matt.  5:  IT;  Luke  24:  44; 
and  did  fulfill  it  all  at  the  cross.  Acts  13:  29.  Hence  ^'Christ 
is  the  end  of  the  law."  Rom.  10:  4. 

Ps.  89:  27-36.     God  will  not  alter  his  covenant 

Seventh-Day  Adventists  claim  a  strong  case  here.  The 
prophecy  refers  to  Christ.  If  his  disciples  break  God's  law, 
statutes,  or  commandments,  God  will  punish  them.  God 
will  not  break  his  covenant  nor  alter  what  went  out  of  his 
lips,  the  decalogue.  Aiiswer.  Assumptions  are  easy  and 
do  for  the  uninformed.  God's  law  is  the  whole  law.  See 
above  on  Ps.  19:  7.  The  covenant  and  what  went  out  of 
God's  lips  has  no  reference  to  the  decalogue,  but  refers  to 
God's  covenant  with  David  to  give  him  a  son  to  sit  on  his 
throne.  See  verses  3,  4,  19,  33-35.  This  is  too  plain  to  be 
denied.     Thus  vanishes  another  of  their  grand  proof  texts. 

Ps.  119.     The  law  exalted. 

Every  verse  in  this  long  Psalm  teaches  the  sacredness  and 
perpetuity  of  the  law.  Answer.  But  the  law  is  the  whole 
Mosaic  law  which  the  king  studied  daily  and  which  Israel  was 
to  keep.  See  my  notes  on  Ps.  19:  7.  Are  Christians  to  keep 
that  law  ?    No.    Seventh-Day  Adventists  even  don't  keep  it. 

Prov.  28:  9.     Must  not  turn  away  from  the  law. 

He  that  turns  away  from  the  law,  his  prayer  is  abomina- 
tion. Those  who  break  the  Sabbath  do  this  and  God  does 
not  hear  their  prayers.  Answer.  Seventh-Day  Adventists 
turn  away  their  ears  from  nine-tenths  of  that  law,  for  it 
embraces  sacrifices,  feasts,  circumcision,  etc.,  none  of  which 
they  do.  See  my  notes  on  Ps.  19:  7,  for  proof.  So  this  text 
does  them  no  good. 

Eccl.  12:  13,  14.  The  ten  commandments  cover  the  whole 
duty  of  man.  '  'Keep  God's  commandments,  for  this  is  the 
whole  duty  of  man." 


372  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

These  are  just  the  ten  commandments.  Hence  they  are 
perfect.  We  need  no  other  law.  Being  perfect  it  cannot 
be  abrogated  nor  changed.  All  will  be  judged  by  it.  Verse 
14.  So  say  Seventh-Day  Adventists.  A^iswer.  This  is  a 
soap  bubble  which  vanishes  with  a  touch.  1.  Does  it  say 
that  these  are  the  ten  commandments,  no  more,  no  less  ?  No, 
they  assume  this,  for  they  have  no  proof  of  it.  See  my 
note  on  Gen.  26:  5,  and  Ps.  19:  7.  The  commandments  are 
anything  God  has  commanded  on  any  subject.  2.  Solomon,  a 
king  of  Israel  wrote  this  to  Israel,  1,000  years  before  Christ. 
Did  the  decalogue  cover  the  w  hole  duty  of  a  man  then  ? 
Was  it  not  a  duty  to  pay  tithes,  keep  the  feasts,  offer  sacri- 
fices, be  circumcised  and  a  hundred  other  things  about  which 
the  ten  commandments  are  silent  ?  Certainly  it  was.  Then 
they  did  not  cover  the  whole  duty  of  man,  and  this  text  is 
misapplied  by  Adventists.  Nor  does  the  decalogue  cover 
all  the  duty  of  man  now,  nor  a  tithe  of  it.  Where  does  it 
require  us  to  visit  the  sick,  the  poor,  the  widow  and  orphans, 
to  be  sober,  patient,  and  loving  ?  Nowhere.  It  is  manifest, 
then,  that  the  commandments  here  spoken  of  which  did 
cover  all  man's  duty,  embraces  all  that  God  had  commanded 
on  all  subjects,  moral,  civil,  or  religious.  3.  That  law  has 
been  fulfilled  and  ended  at  the  cross.  Eph.  2:  15;  Gal.  3: 
19-25.     Adventists  themselves  do  not  keep  it. 

Isa.  42:  21.     Jesus  magnifies  the  law. 

"He  will  magnify  the  law  and  make  it  honorable."  This 
is  the  decalogue.  If  Jesus  magnified  it  he  could  not  have 
abolished  it;  if  he  set  it  aside  he  would  not  have  honored  it. 
Ansiver.  See  the  ready  assumption  again  that  "the  law"  is 
just  the  decalogue.  Does  it  say  so  ?  No.  If  the  reader 
will  bear  in  mind  once  for  all  that  "the  law"  is  the  whole 
Mosaic  code,  he  will  easily  dispose  of  all  their  proof  texts 
Jesus  did  magnify  the  law;  first,  by  carefully  observing 
every  precept  of  that  law,   both   moral  and   ceremonial; 


SPECIAL  TEXTS  EXAMINED.  373 

second,  by  fulfillino^  all  its  predictions  and  types,  thus  accom- 
plishing the  object  for  which  it  was  given.  Seventh-Day  Ad- 
ventists  themselves  claim  that  Christ  aboUshed  the  ceremonial 
law.  Well,  did  he  thereby  belittle  and  dishonor  that  law  ? 
They  dare  not  say  so.  No,  he  magnified  and  honored  it,  as 
they  must  admit.  Then  a  law  can  be  honored  and  magni- 
fied, and  yet  set  aside  as  having  fulfilled  its  purpose.  This  is 
just  what  Christ  did  to  the  law  as  a  whole.  See  my  notes 
on  Rom.  3:  31. 

Isa.  50,  the  Sabbath  to  be  restored.     See  page  261. 

Isa.    58:    12,  13.     The   Sabbath   restored.     See  Chapter 
XIII.,  page  262. 

Isa.  66^  22,  23.     The  Sabbath  in  the  New  Earth.     See 
Chapter  XIIL,  page  262. 

Ez.  22:  26.     The  breach  in  the  law.     See  page  262. 

Dan.  7:  25.     The  pope  to  change  the  Sabbath. 

''He  shall  think  to  change  times  and  laws."  This  refers 
to  the  pope.  He  was  to  change  God's  law,  the  decalogue. 
He  changed  the  Sabbath  and  thus  changed  times.  Answer^ 
1.  It  does  not  say  that  it  was  the  decalogue;  this  they 
assume.  2.  To  change  the  fourth  commandment  and  the 
Sabbath  would  change  only  one  law  and  one  time;  but  the 
prophecy  says  laws  and  times,  both  plural.  This  shows  that 
the  prophecy  is  of  much  wider  scope  than  the}^  give  it.  3. 
There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  the  assertion  that  the  pope 
changed  the  Sabbath.  See  Chap.  XI  of  this  book.  So  this 
application  is  false.  4.  The  old  law  was  changed  by  Christ, 
not  by  the  pope.  Paul  says:  ''There  is  made  of  necessity 
a  change  also  of  the  law."  Heb.  7:  12.  Many  other  scrip- 
tures declare  plainly  that  Jesus  fulfilled  the  law  and  ended 
it  at  the  cross.  Gal.  3:  19-25;  Rom.  10:  4;  Col.  2:  14-17. 
This  prophecy  applies  during  the  gospel  age  and  so  refers 
to  the  law  of  Christ,  not  to  the  old  law  of  Sinai  which  ended 
at  the  cross.      So  their  theory  is  wholly  false.     5.     In  a 


374  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCE  J). 

hundred  ways  the  pope  has  fulfilled  this  prediction  outside 
of  the  Sabbath  by  legislating  for  the  church  in  many  things 
contrary  to  the  laws  of  Christ.  The  Jews'  translation  says 
he  shall  "change  the  festivals  and  the  law."  See  the  scores 
of  festival  days  which  the  pope  has  made,  as  Ash  Wednes- 
day, Holy  Thursday,  Good  Friday,  St.  Patrick's  Day,  All 
Saint's  Day,  etc.  This  is  what  the  prophecy  means.  Scott 
says:  *'Has  it  not  multiplied  its  holy  days  till  scarcely  four 
of  the  six  Avorking  days  have  been  left?"  Clarke  says: 
"Appointing  fasts  and  feasts,  *  *  ^  new  modes  of 
worship,  *  -J^-  *  new  articles  of  faith."  This  is  what 
the  prophecy  foretold.     It  has  no  reference  to  the  Sabbath. 

Matt.  5:  17-19.     Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away. 

Jesus  says  he  did  not  come  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  ful- 
fill it.  And  "Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled." 
Whoever  breaks  any  one  of  these  commandments  is  guilty. 
This  law  is  the  decalogue.  Jesus  says  that  every  jot  and 
tittle  of  it  will  stand  till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away.  This 
shows  that  this  law  is  unchangeable  and  still  binding.  The 
Sabbath  is  a  part  of  it  and  therefore  the  seventh  day  must 
still  be  kept.  Answer.  Seventh-Day  Adventists  consider 
this  the  strongest  text  in  the  New  Testament  for  the  law. 
They  are  constantly  quoting  it.  If  this  fails,  they  have  no 
stronger  fort.  I  am  sure  it  teaches  no  such  thing  as  they 
claim.  1.  Seventh  Day  Adventists  themselves  admit  that 
Jesus  fulfilled  and  ended  what  they  called  the  ceremonial 
law.  He  abolished  it  at  the  cross.  Well,  did  he  come  to 
destroy  that  law  ?  Certainly  not,  and  yet  he  did  it  away. 
So,  then,  it  is  one  thing  to  destroy  a  law,  and  quite  another 
to  bring  it  to  a  close  by  fulfilling  it.  He  says  he  came  to 
fulfill  the  law.  2.  It  does  not  say  that  every  jot  and  tittle 
of  the  law  Avill  stand  till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away;  but  it 
does  say  that  it  will  not  pass  away  until  it  is  all  fulfilled. 


SPECIAL   TEXTS   EXAIVnNED.  375 

This  teaches  that  it  would  all  be  fulfilled  and  pass  away 
sometime.  The  idea  is  that  sooner  would  heaven  and  earth 
pass  away  than  one  letter  of  the  law  would  fail  of  being  ful- 
filled. Luke's  words  make  this  matter  very  clear.  "It  is 
easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  law 
to  fail,"  Luke  16:  17.  Here  we  cannot  mistake  the  mean- 
ing; the  idea  is  not  the  length  of  time  the  law  is  to  last,  but 
the  certainty  that  it  will  not  fail  to  be  fulfilled.  "Fulfilled" 
is  defined  thus  by  Webster:  "To  fill  up,  to  make  full  or 
complete;  to  accomplish."  The  Greek  word  is  Plarosai 
and  is  defined  by  Greenfield,  among  other  things,  "To  ful- 
fill, to  complete;  to  bring  to  a  close,  end,  finish,  complete." 
So  Jesus  did  not  come  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  finish  it. 

The  translation  of  Campbell,  Macknight  and  Doddridge 
renders  it:  "Heaven  and  earth  shall  sooner  perish  than  one 
iota  or  one  tittle  of  the  law  shall  perish  without  attaining 
its  end."  That  is  the  idea  exactly.  Sawyer's  translation 
says:  "I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  complete."  At  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry  Jesus  said  he  came  to  fulfill  the 
law.  After  his  resurrection  he  said:  "These  are  the  words 
which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all 
things  must  be  fulfilled,  which  were  written  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  and  the  psalms,  concerning  me. " 
Luke  24:  44.  And  then  Paul  says:  "And  when  they  had 
fulfilled  all  that  was  written  of  him,  they  took  him  down 
from  the  tree."  Acts  13:  29.  So  it  was  all  fulfilled  at  the 
cross.  Hence  Paul  says  it  was  nailed  to  the  cross.  Col  2: 
14-16.  "Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law."  Rom.  10:  4.  "The 
law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that  we 
might  be  justified  by  faith.  But  after  that  faith  is  come, 
we  are  no  longer  under  a  schoolmaster."  Gal.  3:  24,  25. 
What  could  be  plainer  than  that  the  law  ended  at  the  cross  ? 

3.  The  law  here  spoken  of  is  not  simply  the  decalogue, 
but  the  whole  law  of  Moses.     No  candid  man  will  deny  this. 


376  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

All  commentators  and  scholars  admit  it.  The  proof  is 
abundant.  Thus:  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  was  a  cus- 
tomary phrase  for  the  whole  Old  Testament."  Whedon's 
Commentary  (Methodist)  on  Matt.  5:  17.  "  By  the  law  or 
prophets  are  meant  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  in- 
cluding the  five  books  of  Moses  called  the  law,  and  the  writ- 
ing of  the  prophets  or  rest  of  the  Old  Testament."  Notes 
on  Matt.  5: 17  by  George  W.  Clarke.  "As  everywhere  else, 
so  here  the  word  nomos  (law)  refers  to  the  whole  law,  and 
not  merely  to  the  decalogue."  Lange's  Com.  on  Matt.  5:17. 
"By  ton  710771071  (the  law)  must  be  meant,  in  some  sense,  the 
law  of  Moses."  Bloomfield's  Notes  on  Matt.  5:  17.  "THe 
law  and  the  prophets  summarily  denote  the  whole  Old  Tes- 
tament revelation."  Meyer's  Commentary  on  Matt.  5:  17. 
"By  the  law  and  the  prophets  is  here  meant  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  general."  Bible  Commentary.  Dr.  Albert  Barnes 
says  on  this  text:  '•'•The  law — the  five  books  of  Moses  called 
the  law.  The  prophets — the  books  which  the  prophets  wrote. 
These  two  divisions  here  seem  to  comprehend  the  Old  Testa- 
ment."    So  all  commentators. 

The  Jewish  scriptures  were  divided  into  the  "book  of  the 
law,"  which  included  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  the 
"book  of  the  prophets,"  which  included  the  books  written 
by  the  prophets,  as  the  historical  books,  etc.  Sometimes  a 
third  division  was  recognized,  viz:  the  Psalms,  or  poetical 
books.  I  have  before  me  the  Jews'  Bible  which  is  divided 
that  way.  Portions  from  the  book  of  the  law  and  also  from 
the  prophets  were  read  in  the  synagogues  every  Sabbath. 
This  division  of  the  Old  Testament  is  often  referred  to  in  the 
New  Testament.  Paul  says:  "All  things  which  are  written 
in  the  book  of  the  law."  Gal.  3:  10.  Again:  "It  is  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  the  prophets."  Acts  7:  42.  Once  more: 
"After  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets."  Acts  13: 
15.     Hence  "  the  law  and  the  prophets  "  became  a  common 


SPECIAL   TEXTS   EXAMINED.  377 

term  for  the  whole  Old  Testament.  The  law  was  the  five 
books  of  Moses.  Read  a  few  texts  :  "  This  is  the  law  and 
the  prophets."  Matt.  7: 12.  "All  the  law  and  the  prophets 
prophesied  mitil  John."  Matt.  11:  13.  Here  the  law  can 
not  mean  just  the  decalogue,  for  the  law  prophesied.  "  On 
these  two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets. " 
Matt.  22:  -10.  "The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John." 
"  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets,"  ''  If  they  hear  not 
Moses  and  the  prophets."  Luke  16:  16,  29,  31.  Here  the 
law  and  the  prophets  is  the  same  as  Moses  and  the  prophets. 
"Him  of  whom  Moses  is  the  law  and  the  prophets  did  write." 
John  1:  45.  "Beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets," 
"which  was  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  prophets, 
and  in  the  Psalms,  concerning  me."  Luke  24:27,  44.  "All 
things  written  in  the  law  and  in  the  prophets."  Acts  25:14. 
"  Which  the  prophets  and  Moses  did  say."  Acts  26:22. 
Paul  preached  "  out  of  the  law  of  Moses  and  out  of  the 
prophets."  Acts  28:23.  "Witnessed  by  the  law  and  the 
prophets."  Rom.  3:  21.  See  how  common  this  phrase  was 
then  for  the  whole  Old  Testament.  Hence  Jesus  said,  "  I 
am  not  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets."  Matt. 
8:  17.  In  the  light  of  the  above  facts  any  one  can  see  that 
Jesus  here  meant  the  whole  Old  Testament  the  same  as  in 
all  the  other  texts. 

In  proof  of  this,  notice  that  he  mentions  various  parts  of 
the  law — murder,  altar,  gift,  adultery,  swearing,  eye  for  an 
eye,  divorce,  love  to  enemies,  etc.,  verses  21-43.  Is  all  this 
in  the  decalogue  ?     No,  it  is  in  the  book  of  the  law. 

It  is  absurd  to  say  that  he  meant  only  the  decalogue  and 
the  prophets.  This  would  leave  out  the  books  of  Moses  en- 
tirely. So,  then,  the  law  here  is  the  whole  law  of  Moses. 
Now  if  every  jot  and  tittle  of  that  law  is  binding  till  the  end 
of  the  world,  then  we  have  the  whole  Je^vish  law  to  keep  as 
ivell  as  the  Sabbath.     This  shows  the  fallacy  of  the  Seventh- 


878  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Day  Adventists'  position.  The  simple  truth  is  that  Christ 
fulfilled  the  law  and  it  passed  away  after  serving  its  purpose. 

Matt.  19: 16-22.     The  commandments  to  be  kept. 

The  young  man  asks  what  to  do  to  have  eternal  life. 
Jesus  said,  '  'Keep  the  commandments. "  When  asked  which, 
he  said,  Do  not  murder,  nor  commit  adultery,  nor  steal, 
nor  bear  false  witness;  honor  father  and  mother  and  love  your 
neighbor  as  yourself.  Here  Jesus  teaches  that  we  must  keep 
the  commandments  to  have  life.  He  then  quotes  five  of  the 
ten  showing  that  to  be  the  law  he  meant.  The  Sabbath  is  a 
part  of  that  law,  hence  we  must  keep  it. 

Answer:  1.  It  is  noticeable  that  Jesus  omits  the  Sab- 
bath not  only  here  but  on  all  other  occasions  like  it.  2.  Of 
course  no  one  could  gain  eternal  life  and  break  the  command- 
ments which  Jesus  mentioned.  3.  And  it  is  manifest  he 
did  not  mention  all  the  commandments  which  m.ust  be  kept. 
4.  If  it  is  said  that  in  quoting  a  part  of  the  decalogue,  he 
thereby  implied  and  endorsed  the  whole  of  it  as  binding,  then 
we  reply  that  by  quoting  a  part  of  the  law  of  Moses  he  thereby 
bound  all  the  rest  of  that  law  upon  us  also.  The  command 
to  love  your  neighbor  is  not  in  the  decalogue  but  in  ''the 
book  of  the  law."  So  in  Mark  10-  19,  he  quotes  "defraud 
not"  from  Lev.  19:  13,  the  law  of  Moses.  Is  then  all  the 
Levitical  law  binding  on  us  because  Jesus  quoted  a  part  of 
it  ?  No.  Then  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  whole  of  a 
law  is  binding  on  us  because  Jesus  quotes  a  part  of  it  to  a 
young  man  still  under  that  law.  We  object  to  swallowing 
a  whole  ox  because  we  are  told  that  a  piece  of  the  flesh  is 
good. 

We  should  remember  that  at  this  time  both  Jesus  and  the 
young  man  were  still  under  the  law.  Jesus  often  adapted 
his  instructions  to  the  time  and  circumstances.  To  the 
cleansed  leper,  Jesus  said,  "Go  thy  way,  show  thyself  to 
the  priest,  and  offer  the  gift  that  Moses  commanded."  Matt 


SPECIAL  TEXTS  EXAMINED.  379 

8:  L  Shall  we  apply  this  to  Christians  now  and  conclude 
that  they  must  ofler  gifts  according  to  Moses  ?  Of  course 
not,  for  he  was  yet  under  the  law  and  we  are  not.  Again 
Christ  said,  ''The  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses' 
seat.  All  therefore  whatsoever  they  bid  you  observe,  that 
observe  and  do."  Matt.  23:  2,  3. 

Here  they  were  directed  to  observe  every  item  of  the 
Mosaic  law  just  as  the  Pharisees  taught.  \Yhy  don't  Advent- 
ists  quote  that  to  prove  we  must  keep  the  Sabbath,  for  it 
certainly  included  the  Sabbath  ?  This  shows  that  Christ's 
directions  about  keeping  the  Jewish  law  were  to  those  still 
under  the  law  and  not  for  all  time  to  come.  Li  is  noticeable 
that  Jesus  never  stated  directly  that  any  of  the  old  law  would 
be  abolished,  not  even  the  sacrifices,  the  temple-service,  cir- 
cumcision, etc.  The  time  had  not  come;  the  people  were 
not  yet  ready  for  it. 

So  this  young  Pharisee  came  as  one  looking  to  the  law 
and  his  own  deeds  for  righteousness.  "What  good  thing 
shall  I  do  that  I  may  have  eternal  life  ?"  Jesus  answered 
him  according  to  his  question  and  according  to  his  duty  un- 
der the  law,  that  law  to  which  he  was  looking  for  salvation. 
"Thou  knowest  the  commandments,"  do  these,  for  the  law 
said,  "The  man  that  doeth  them  shall  live  in  them."  Gal.  3: 
12.  It  is  evident  that  Jesus  did  this  to  take  the  conceit  out 
of  him  and  to  show  him  his  need  of  something  better.  He 
succeeded,  for  the  young  man  went  away  sorrowful  and 
humbled. 

Matt.  24:  20.  The  Sabbath  A.  D.  70.  See  Chapter 
XIV.,  page  270. 

Matt.  28:  1.  "The  Sabbath"  still  after  the  cross.  See 
Chapter  XIV.,  page  272. 

Mark  2:  27.     The  Sabbath  for  man.     See  page  269. 

Luke  23:  5-6.  The  women  kept  the  Sabbath.  See  Chap- 
ter XIV.,  page  273. 


380  SEVENTH-BAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Acts  13:  14;  18:  4,  etc.  Paul  kept  the  Sabbath.  See 
Chapter  XIV.,  page  278. 

Rom.  3:  31.     The  law  established. 

^'Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith  ?  God  for- 
bid, yea,  we  establish  the  law."  The  law  is  the  ten  com- 
mandments. It  is  not  abolished  but  established.  This  is  a 
positive  statement  that  the  law  is  still  binding  under  the 
gospel.  The  Sabbath  is  a  part  of  the  law  and  therefore 
must  be  kept. 

Answer:  1.  A  few  isolated  texts  cannot  be  interpreted  to 
conflict  with  the  general  tenor,  and  many  direct  statements 
of  the  New  Testament  that  we  are  not  under  the  law  but 
that  it  ceased  at  the  cross.  2.  There  is  nothing  in  the  text 
or  context  that  says  or  intimates  that  it  is  the  decalogue  only 
of  which  Paul  speaks.  3.  Paul  has  argued  through  these 
three  chapters  that  no  one  has  ever  kept  the  law,  neither 
Gentiles  nor  Jews.  So  he  reasons  that  no  one  can  be  justified 
by  *'the  law  of  works,"  but  all  can  be  justified  "by  the  law 
of  faith."  Chap.  3:  27.  Then  he  "concludes  that  a  man 
is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law."  Verse 
28.  Then  he  anticipates  that  some  one  will  object  that  he  is 
an  Antinomian,  setting  aside  all  law.  'Verse  31.  This  he 
denies.  Because  the  Jewish  law  is  abrogated,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  all  law  is  abolished.  So  he  says:  "Do  we  then 
nullify  law  through  the  faith  ?  By  no  means,  but  we  estab- 
lish law."  Diaglott.  This  is  a  literal  translation  of  the 
Greek  and  gives  the  idea  correctly.  Paul  does  not  say  the 
law,  but  simply  law  in  general.  The  definite  article  the  is 
not  used  before  law  in  the  original.  Hence  in  this  verse  we 
understand  Paul  to  speak  of  law  in  general  and  not  of  "the 
law"  of  Sinai.  Here  are  other  reliable  translations  of  the 
text,  giving  the  same  idea.  "Do  we  then  make  void  law 
through  the  faith?  Far  be  it,  yea,  we  establish  law." 
American  Bible  Union  Translation.     "Do  we,  then,  make 


SPECIAL   TEXTS   EXAMINED.  381 

law  useless  through  the  faith  ?  By  no  means,  but  we  estab_ 
lish  law."  Campbell,  Macknight  and  Dodriclge.  "Do  we, 
then,  make  law  of  none  effect  through  faith?  God  forbid; 
nay,  we  estabHsh  law."  Revised  Version,  marginal  read- 
ing. The  marginal  reading  in  this  Version  where  it  differs 
from  the  authorized  text  as  it  does  here,  was  supported  by 
two-thirds  of  the  learned  translators  present  at  the  last  read- 
ing.    (See  their  preface.)     This,  then,  is  well  supported. 

Hence  this  text  does  not  speak  of  the  decalogue,  nor  even 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  but  of  law  in  the  abstract.  Paul  affirms 
that  faith  in  Christ  does  not  nullify  the  use  of  law.  This  is 
exactly  what  I  believe.  God's  great  moral  law  remains  un- 
changed through  all  ages,  while  particular  expressions  of 
that  law  adapted  to  local  circumstances  as  was  the  Jewish  law, 
may  be  changed. 

If  it  be  insisted  that  this  must  be  the  law  given  to  the 
Jews,  then  we  reply:  The  law  would  be  the  whole  Mosaic 
law,  not  the  decalogue  alone.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  gives  a 
sufficient  answer  to  the  Adventists:  "By  law  here  we  may 
understand  the  whole  of  the  Mosaic  law  in  its  rites  and 
ceremonies,  of  which  Jesus  Christ  was  the  subject  and  the 
end.  All  that  law  had  respect  to  him,  and  the  doctrine  of 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  which  the  Christian  religion  proclaimed, 
established  the  very  claims  and  demands  of  that  law,  by 
showing  that  all  was  accomplished  in  the  passion  and  death 
of  Christ."  On  Rom.  3:  31.  So  this  text  in  noway  favors 
the  Adventist  idea,  though  it  is  their  main  hope. 

Rom.  6:  14,  15.      "NOT  UNDER  THE  LAW." 

Several  times  Paul  says  directly  that  Christians  are  "not 
under  the  law."  See  Rom.  6:  14,  15;  Gal.  3:  23-25;  4:  21; 
5:  18.  It  would  seem  as  though  that  ought  to  settle  it  that 
Christians  are  not  to  be  governed  by  that  law:  for  surely  if 


382  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

we  are  not  under  a  law  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  obey 
it.  Living  in  Michigan,  I  am  under  the  law  of  this  state; 
but  I  am  not  under  the  law  of  England,  hence  it  has  no 
claim  on  me.  So  if  we  are  not  under  the  law  it  has  no 
claims  on  us.  In  opposition  to  the  plain  meaning  of  this 
term,  Seventh-Day  Aventists  say  that  it  means  that  we  are 
not  under  the  curse  or  condemnation  of  the  law.  But  Paul 
does  not  say  that  we  are  not  under  the  curse  of  the  law;  but 
it  is  the  law  itself  that  we  are  not  under.  Every  text  where 
the  term  occurs  shows  that  it  means  under  the  authority  of 
the  law. 

This  subject  is  so  plain  that  Seventh-Day  Adventists  them- 
selves are  divided  over  it,  one  party  writing  against  the 
other.  Elder  Waggoner  leads  one  party  and  Elder  Butler 
the  other.  I  quote  from  Butler  against  Waggoner  in  ' '  The 
Law  in  Galatians,"  pages  51,  52.  ''  But  it  is  thought  that 
in  this  verse  (Gal.  3:  23)  the  expression  'under  the  law'  must 
refer  to  the  sinner  under  the  condemnation  of  the  moral  law. 
Lengthy  arguments  have  been  made  in  support  of  this;  but 
we  fail  to  see  evidence  to  prove  this  position."  Then  he  ad- 
mits to  the  other  party  that  ' '  under  the  law  "  sometimes 
means  under  its  condemnation  though  this  is  not  its  primary 
meaning.  He  had  to  say  this  to  save  himself  on  other  texts, 
but  I  deny  that  it  ever  has  that  meaning.  He  continues: 
"We  read  in  Matt.  8:  9,  of  a  man  under  authority  having 
soldiers  under  him,  i.  e.,  authority  was  over  him  and  he  was 
in  authority  over  the  soldiers,  and  each  was  to  obey;  not 
that  he  was  under  the  condemnation  of  authority,  or  the  sol- 
diers under  his  condemnation.  ^  *  *  The  very  nature 
of  the  expression  itself  signifies  this,  'under  the  law'  simply 
meaning  the  law  being  above  or  having  authority  over  the 
persons  who  were  under  it.  This  is  the  primary,  simplest 
meaning  of  the  term;  and  unless  strong  reasons  can  be  ad- 
duced to  the  contrary,  we  sheul-d  aJways  give  the  expression 


SPECIAL   TEXTS   EXAMINED.  383 

this  signification.'"  "Greenfield  *  *  *  gives  no  instance 
where  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  being  snliject  to  the  condem- 
nation of  the  law."  "We  are  no  longer  under  a  pedagogue 
[the  law],  i.  e.,  no  longer  under  his  authority;  his  authority 
is  no  lonirer  over  us  because  his  office  ceased  w'hen  the  seed 
came."  So  writes  Elder  Butler,  and  he  states  the  truth:  but 
he  tries  to  limit  this  to  the  ceremonial  law.  Here  he  fails, 
for  it  is  "the  law,"  not  a  part  of  it. 

Here  is  wdiat  the  lexicons  say  of  the  word  imder:  "  In 
relation  to  something  that  governs.  In  a  state  of  subjection; 
subject."  Webster.  Under  is  from  the  Greek  word  "Awjt?*?," 
which  is  thus  defined:  "Of  subjection  to  a  law.  Rom  6:14. " 
Greenfield:  "  To  express  subjection;"  "  under  his  sway;" 
"under  its  guidance;"  "subject  to."  Liddell  and  Scott. 
"Subject  to."  Groves  Gr.  and  Eng  Diet.  "Under  subjec- 
tion to,  Rom.  14."  Bagster's  Gr.  Lex.  So  all  the  authori- 
ties I  have  consulted  define  "under"  to  mean  under  the  au- 
thority of,  subject  to.  Now  Paul  says,  "  Ye  are  not  under 
the  law,"  Rom.  6:  14;  that  is,  not  under  its  authority,  not 
subject  to  it.     This  is  plain  enough. 

Turning  to  the  commentators,  I  read  :  "  Under  the  law; 
in  subjection  to  it."  Clarke  on  Gal.  4:  4.  "  Subject  to  the 
law,"  "  Bound  by  its  requirements."  Barnes  on  Gal.  4:  4. 
"Not  under  the  law;  not  under  a  legal  dispensation." 
American  Tract  Society,  notes  on  Rom.  6:14.  "  Under  the 
law,  under  the  legal  dispensation."     Scott  on  Gal.  3:  23-25. 

Thus  all  agree  that  "  under  the  law  "  means  subject  to  its 
authority.  But  w^e  are  not  under  the  law,  not  under  its  au 
thority.  Read  a  few  texts  as  to  its  meaning.  "  Edom  r© 
volted  from  under  the  hand  of  Judah."  2  Kings  8:  20. 
"Israel  went  out  from  under  the  hand  of  the  Syrians."  2 
Kings  13:  5.  "Ye  purpose  to  keep  under  the  children  of 
Judah."  2  Chron.  28:10.  In  every  case  it  means  under  the 
authority  of.     Again  :     "A  man  under  authority,  having 


384       SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

soldiers  under  me,"  Matt.  8:  9.  "Ye  are  not  under  the  law, 
but  under  grace."  Rom.  6:14.  **And  unto  the  Jews  I  be- 
came as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain  the  Jews;  to  them  that  are 
under  the  law,  as  under  the  law,  that  I  might  gain  them  that 
are  under  the  law."  "To  them  that  are  without  law,  as 
without  law  (being  not  without  law  to  God,  but  under  the 
law  to  Christ),  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are  without  law." 
1  Cor:  9:  20-21. 

This  passage  shows  beyond  a  doubt  what  Paul  means  by 
**  under  the  law."  The  Jews  were  under  the  law.  When 
with  them  he  did  as  they  did  to  gain  them.  He  kept  the 
law  as  they  did.  See  for  proof  Acts  16:  3,  where  he  circum- 
cised Timothy,  and  Acts  21:  20-26,  where  he  shaved  his  head 
and  offered  offerings.  Those  without  law  were  the  Gentiles 
who  were  never  under  the  Jewish  law.  When  with  them  he 
lived  as  they  did  to  gain  them.  He  did  not  keep  the  Mosaic 
law.  But  Paul  is  careful  to  add  that  he  was  under  the  law 
to  Christ,  or  more  correctly,  "  Under  law  to  Christ. '^ 
Revised  Version.  "Under  Chrisfs  law."  Diaglott.  "Under 
the  law  of  the  Messiah. "  Syriac.  "Under  the  law  of  Christ.  '^ 
Clarke.  "The  law  enjoined  of  Christ."  Barnes.  Paul 
says  he  was  under  Christ's  law.  Does  he  mean  that  he  was 
condemned  by  the  law  of  Christ?  Surely  not;  but  he  was 
under  its  authority. 

Again:  "But  before  faith  came,  we  were  kept  under  the 
Jaw,  shut  up  unto  the  faith  which  should  afterwards  be  re- 
vealed. Wherefore  the  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring 
us  unto  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith.  But 
after  that  faith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  school- 
master."    Gal.  3:  23-25. 

When  were  people  under  the  law  ?  Before  Christ  came. 
Are  they  under  it  now  ?  No.  This  shows  what  Paul  means 
— a  change  of  dispensations  changed  their  relations  to  the 
law.   Before  Christ,  under  the  law;  since  Christ,  not  under  it 


SPECIAL  TEXTS  EXAMINED.  385 

Before  Christ  came  they  were  under  the  law  a8  a  teacher 
who  was  preparing  them  for  the  great  Teacher.  When 
Christ  came  they  were  no  longer  under  that  old  schoolmaster, 
the  law.  Proceeding  with  his  argument,  Paul  says  :  ''  But 
when  the  fullness  of  the  time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his 
Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law."  Gal.  4:  4. 
This  again  is  decisive  as  to  the  meaning  of  ''under  the  law." 
Christ  was  bom  under  the  law,  that  is,  subject  to  the  law 
the  same  as  any  Jew.  He  carefully  obeyed  that  law  till  it 
was  abolished  at  His  cross.  He  certainly  was  not  born 
under  the  condemnation  of  the  law,  for  he  was  without  sin. 
To  the  Galatians  who  were  going  back  to  the  observance  of 
the  law  Paul  says:  "  Tell  me,  ye  that  desire  to  be  under 
the  law,  do  ye  not  hear  the  law  ?"  Gal.  4:  21.  Did  they  de- 
sire to  be  under  the  curse  of  the  law?  Nonsense.  They 
desired  to  obey  the  law  just  as  Adventists  do  now.  Finally 
Paul  says  to  them,  "If  ye  be  led  of  the  Spirit,  ye  are  not 
under  the  law."  Gal.  5:  18.  If  they  accepted  Christ,  they 
had  no  further  need  for  the  old  law.  So,  then.  Christians 
are  not  under  the  authority  of  the  law  for  it  was  nailed  to 
the  cross.  On  this  point  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  forcibly  says  : 
"Under  the  law:  In  subjection  to  it,  that  in  Him,  all  its  de- 
signs might  be  fulfilled,  and  by  His  death,  the  whole  might 
be  abolished,  the  law  dying  when  the  son  of  God  expired 
upon  the  cross."    On  Gal.  4:  4. 

That  "under  the  law"  means  subject  to  the  authority  of 
the  law  is  plainly  proven  by  Rom.  3:  19.  "Now  we  know 
that  what  things  soever  the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  who 
are  under  the  law."  The  Jew  readily  admitted  that  all  the 
Gentiles  were  sinners;  but  the  point  was  to  prove  that  the 
Jews  themselves  were  also  sinners.  So  in  verses  10-18  be 
makes  several  quotations  from  their  scripture,  saying  that, 
"There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one,"  etc.  "Now,"  says 
Paul,  *  'you  cannot  apply  this  tG  the  Gentiles,  for  it  is  in  your 


386  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

own  law,  and  we  know  that  a  law  speaks  to  those  who  are 
subject  to  it  and  not  to  those  who  are  not.  So  it  must  mean 
that  not  one  of  you  Jews  are  righteous.  Hence,  as  ail  the 
Gentiles  are  sinners,  and  this  proves  that  all  Jews  are  sin- 
ners too,  therefore  all  the  world  are  guilty."  Again  Paul 
argues  that  the  law  speaks  only  to  "those  who  are  under 
the  law. "  But  does  the  law  speak  only  to  those  who  are 
condemned  by  it  ?  That  is  false  and  absurd.  To  every  man 
in  Michigan  our  law  says,  ^  'you  shall  not  steal, "  whether  they 
have  stolen  or  not.  So  the  Mosaic  law  was  addressed  to  all 
the  Jews.  "Hearken,  O  Israel,  unto  the  statutes  and  unto 
the  judgments  which  I  teach  you.""  Deut.  4:  1.  Who  was 
to  hearken  to  that  law  ?  All  Israel,  for  it  spoke  to  them 
all.  This  fact  was  so  manifest  that  Paul  said,  "Now  we 
know  that  what  things  soever  the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them 
who  are  under  the  law."  What,  then,  does  he  mean  by  un- 
the  law  ?  He  means  under  the  authority  of  the  law,  subject 
to  the  law,  and  this  is  what  it  always  means.  But  Paul  says 
over  and  over  that  Christians  "are  not  under  the  law." 

But  Adventists  immediately  exclaim,  '  'Then,  if  we  are  not 
under  the  law,  we  can  sin  all  we  like,  can  steal,  lie,  kill, 
etc."  They  never  seem  to  notice  that  this  is  precisely  what 
the  Judaizers,  the  opponents  of  Paul,  said  against  his  doc- 
trine back  there.  He  states  their  objection  and  answers  it. 
"Ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace.  What  then? 
shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under 
grace?     God  forbid."     Rom.  6:14,  15. 

The  fact  that  it  was  objected  to  Paul  that  his  doctrine  of 
the  law  gave  license  to  sin  shows  that  he  did  set  aside  the 
authority  of  the  law.  If  not,  why  was  this  objection  made 
to  his  doctrine  ?  The  Jews  believed  in  the  pardon  of  sin  as 
fctrongly  as  Paul  did.  So  if  he  merely  taught  that  the  sia^ 
ner  was  pardoned  by  grace  so  that  he  was  no  longer  under 
tiie  condemnation  of  the  law,  the  Jew  would  agree  with  him, 


SPECIAL  TEXTS  EXAMINED.  38'i 

for  they  all  believed  in  the  pardon  of  sins.  The  fact  that  this 
objecti'on  was  raised  to  PauPs  position  on  the  hiw  the  same 
as  it  is  to  our  position  now,  shows  that  we  have  interpreted 
him  correctly. 

Rom.  7.  The  law  is  holy. 

Verse  12.  "Wherefore  the  law  is  holy  and  the  com- 
mandment holy,  and  just  and  good."  This  is  the  decalogue 
as  shown  by  verse  7.  As  late  as  A.  D.  60,  Paul  said  it  was 
holy,  just,  good,  and  spiritual,  verse  14,  and  that  he  de- 
lighted in  it,  verse  22.     Certainly  then  it  was  not  abolished. 

Answer:  Whoever  has  access  to  Dr.  Clarke's  Commen- 
tary on  this  chapter  will  find  the  Seventh-Day  Adventist 
at'gument  fully  and  finely  answered.  I  will  note  but  a  few 
points. 

Paul  had  just  stated  that  we  are  not  under  the  law.  Chap. 
6:  14.  Now  he  illustrates  it.  A  woman  is  bound  to  her 
husband  as  long  as  he  lives.  She  is  under  his  law,  his  au- 
thority. If  he  dies,  ^'sbeisfree  from  thatlsLW."^^  Verse  3. 
This  is  not  the  law  of  the  state,  nor  the  moral  law,  nor  the 
law  of  Moses,  but  it  is  "the  law  of  her  husband,"  Verse  2, 
as  Paul  distinctly  says.  That  law  under  which  she  has  been 
living  dies  with  her  husband  and  she  is  freed  from  it,  no 
longer  bound  to  do  his  will,  but  is  free  to  give  herself  to 
another. 

Just  so  the  Jew^s  had  been  held  under  the  authority  of 
the  Mosaic  law.  That  he  writes  this  to  the  Jewish  believers 
at  Rome  is  proved  by  the  first  verse.  "I  speak  to  them  that 
know  the  law." 

But  the  law  died  and  so  the  connection  between  them  was 
dissolved  and  its  authority  was  ended.  This  is  Paul's  con- 
clusion as  stated  by  himself:  ''But  now  we  are  delivered 
from  the  law,  that  being  dead  wherein  we  were  held." 

"Wherefore,  my  brethren,  ye  also  are  become  dead  to  the 
law  by  the  body  of  Christ;  that  ye  should  be  married  to 


388  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

another,  even  to  him  who  is  raised  from  the  dead. "  Verses 
4,  6.  No  statement  could  be  plainer:  we  are  delivered  from 
the  law  which  is  dead.  And  we  are  dead  to  the  law.  Now 
we  can  be  married  to  Christ.  Says  Dr.  Albert  Barnes  on 
verse  4:  ' '  The  idea  there  is,  that  death  dissolves  a  connection 
from  which  obligation  resulted.  This  is  the  single  point  of 
the  illustration.  It  is  an  error  to  make  everything  in  this 
illustration  fit  something  in  the  case  of  the  Roman  church. 
Like  all  parables,  it  has  just  one  object  and  that  is  to  show 
the  dissolution  of  a  connection  before  existing,  the  end  of 
an  authority  once  in  force.  The  Jewish  believers  were  once 
under  the  Mosaic  law.  That  law  is  dead  and  they  are  freed 
from  its  authority.  Now  they  can  accept  the  authority  of 
another,  the  Lord  Jesus. "  Says  Dr.  Clarke:  ^^ As  long  as 
he  livetk.  Or  as  long  as  it  liveth:  law  does  not  extend  its 
influence  to  the  dead,  nor  do  abrogated  laws  hind.  It  is  all 
the  same  whether  we  understand  the  words  as  speaking  of  a 
law  abrogated^  so  that  it  cannot  command;  or  of  its  objects 
being  dead  so  that  it  has  none  to  bind.  In  either  case  the  law 
has  no  force."  Surely  the  subject  is  clear  enough  if  we 
want  to  understand  it. 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  its  many  excellent  precepts,  the 
law  was  holy,  just  and  good  and  even  spiritual;  yet  failing 
to  accomplish  man's  salvation  it  was  superceded  by  a  better 
system  which  does  what  it  could  not  do. 

Rom.  14:  5.     One  day  above  another.     See  page  297. 

1  Cor.  7:  19.     The  commandments  to  be  kept. 

Paul  says  we  must  keep  "the  commandments  of  God,"  that 
is  the  ten  commandments.  Answer:  See  how  they  always 
assume  just  what  they  ought  to  prove,  viz.,  that  this  is  the 
decalogue.  Now  let  Paul  in  the  same  letter  explain  what  he 
means  by  the  commandments  of  God.  "The  things  that  1 
write  unto  you  are  the  commandments  of  the  Lord. "  1  Cor. 
14:  37.     So  this  has  no  reference  to  the  decalogue. 


SPECIAL  TEXTS   EXAMINED.  389 

2  Cor.  3.  The  ministration  of  death  done  away.  See 
Chapter  XIX.,  page  356. 

Galatians  3:  19.     The  added  law. 

"The  law  was  added  because  of  transgression."  This  was 
the  ceremonial  law  added  to  the  moral  law.  Hence  the  law 
done  away  in  Galatians  is  only  the  ceremonial  law.  Answer. 
This  is  what  one  party  of  the  Seventh-Day  Adventists  says, 
while  another  part}'  sa^'S  that  it  is  all  the  moral  law  and  not 
done  away  at  all!  So  they  warmly  contradict  each  other. 
But,  1.  There  is  nothing  said  about  any  such  distinction  as 
moral  and  ceremonial  laws  in  all  the  book. 

2.  We  have  proved  that  there  is  no  such  distinction  in  all 
the  Bible. 

3.  All  through  Galatians  it  is  "^A^"  law  without  an  intima- 
tion that  there  was  another  law  from  which  it  was  to  be  dis- 
tinguished. 27ie  law  was  the  whole  law.  Even  Elder 
Butler  admits  this.  Hear  him:  ''The  term 'the  law' among 
the  Jews  generally  included  the  five  books  of  Moses,  thus 
including  the  whole  system,  moral,  ritual,  typical  and  civil. 
This  as  a  system  these  Judaizing  teachers  desired  to  main- 
tain." Again:  "There  are  no  doubt,  several  references  to 
the  moral  law  in  the  epistle."  Law  in  Galatians,  pages  70, 
15.  Good:  that  ends  the  matter;  Galatians  treats  of  the  whole 
law. 

4.  That  the  moral  law,  as  they  call  it,  is  included  in  "the 
law"  is  easily  proved.  Gal.  3:  10,  includes  "all  things 
which  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law."  That  book  con- 
tained the  ten  commandments.  Butler  admits  this.  "The 
book  of  the  law  *  *  *  contained  both  the  moral  and 
ceremonial  laws."  Law  in  Galatians,  page  39.  Again: 
•'Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law."  Gal. 
3:  13.  This  is  the  moral  law,  for  there  was  no  curse  to  the 
ceremonial  law.  This  point  is  hard  for  them  to  meet.  But- 
ler makes  this  confession;     "We  are  perfectly  willing  to  ad- 


390  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

mit  that  the  curse  brought  to  view  in  the  text,  from  which 
Christ  redeems  his  people,  principally  includes  transgressions 
of  the  moral  law."  Law  in  Galatians,  page  40.  This  gives 
up  the  whole  case.  In  GaL  5:  14,  Paul  quotes  as  "the 
law,"  ''Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor."  If  any  law  is  moral 
this  is. 

5.  Now  read  carefully  Gal.  3: 15-19,  and  see  that  the  law 
was  added  to  the  promise  made  to  Abraham.  "Was  added  to 
the  promise,"  Wesley's  Notes.  So  all  their  talk  about  this 
being  the  ceremonial  law  added  to  the  moral  law  is  a  fallacy. 
It  is  the  whole  law  and  it  all  ended  at  Christ.     Gal.  3: 19-24. 

Eph.  2:  14,  15.     The  law  of  ordinances. 

This  shows  that  only  the  ceremonial  law  was  abolished. 
Answer:  As  the  ceremonial  precepts  of  the  law  were  the 
greater  part  of  it,  and  as  it  was  largely  on  their  account  that 
the  law  was  abolished  as  a  burdensome  system,  they  are 
naturally  mentioned  as  the  reason  why  it  was  abolished.  In 
giving  the  cause  for  a  man's  death  we  naturally  mention  the 
diseased  parts,  though  the  whole  man  died.  We  say  that 
Brown  died  of  heart  disease.  Then  Smith  reports  that  all 
that  is  dead  of  Brown  is  his  heart!  That  is  a  fair  illustra- 
tion of  the  Adventists  argument  on  several  texts.  The 
apostles  say  that  the  law  is  dead,  died  of  types,  shadows 
and  carnal  ordinances.  Then  the  Adventists  report  that 
only  apart  of  the  law  is  dead,  just  the  most  diseased  parts 
and  these  have  been  amputated  !  Selah  !  Adventists  say 
that  there  are  no  ' '  ordinances  "  in  the  ten  commandments, 
hence  this  can  not  apply  to  them.  But  this  is  a  mistake. 
What  is  an  ordinance?  Webster  says:  1.  "An  ordaining  or 
establishing  by  authority;  appointment.  2.  A  rule  estab- 
lished by  authority;  a  statute,  law,  edict,  decree."  This  is 
exactly  what  the  decalogue  was,  a  law  established  by  au- 
thority. Cruden's  Concordance  says:  "Ordinance.  1. 
"  Any  decree,  statute  or  law,  made  by  civil  governors.     2. 


SPECIAL   TEXTS   EXAMINED.  391 

The  laws,  statutes,  and  commandments  of  God."  So  then 
the  statutes,  laws  and  commandments  of  God  are  ordi- 
nances; specially  was  this  true  of  the  Sabbath  to  be  kept  on 
the  seventh  day.  This  depended  wholly  and  only  upon  God's 
appointment ;  hence  it  w^as  surely  an  ordinance,  and  so 
passed  away  with  those  ordinances. 

Col.  2:  14-16.     Nailed  to  the  cross.     See  Chapter  XV. 

The  Law  in  the  Book  of  Hebrews. 

It  is  claimed  by  Adventists  that  the  law  which  is  here 
so  distinctly  said  to  have  been  "  changed,"  ''  disannulled," 
etc.,  is  only  the  ceremonial  law.  Ansiver:  1.  Not  a  word 
is  said  about  a  ceremonial  law^  or  that  it  is  a  particular  one 
of  two  laws  that  is  meant.  It  is  simply  "  ^Ad"  law  without 
any  qualification.  If  this  tw^o  law  doctrine  was  as  clear  to 
the  apostles  and  as  important  as  it  is  with  Adventists,  it  is 
strange  that  they  should  not  somewhere,  at  least  once,  say  so 
plainly.  But  they  don't.  They  just  say  "  the  "  law  and  go 
right  on.  2.  The  decalogue  is  distinctly  referred  to  several 
times  in  this  book,  as  in  Chap,  8:  9,  "  the  covenant,"  (See 
Deut.  4:  13)  *'  the  tables  of  the  covenant,"  Chap.  9:  4,  and 
the  giving  of  the  ten  commandments  on  Mount  Sinai.  Chap. 
12:  18-21.     Hence  the  book  does  refer  to  the  whole  law. 

James  2:  8-12.     Every  point  of  the  law  binding. 

James  quotes  two  precepts  from  the  ten  and  says  we  must 
keep  the  whole  law  of  which  the  Sabbath  is  a  part.  Answer: 
1.  Again  we  remind  the  reader  that  "  the  law  "  is  all  the 
law  given  to  the  Jews,  of  which  the  decalogue  is  only  a  part. 
So  if  ''  the  law  "  is  binding  now,  then  we  must  keep  it  all, 
sacrifices,  feast  days,  etc.  2.  If  all  the  decalogue  is  binding 
because  James  quotes  a  part  of  it,  then  all  the  law  of  Moses 
is  binding  too,  because  he  also  quotes  from  that,  verse  8, 
''Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor."  This  is  from  Lev.  19:  18. 
Is  that  whole  chapter  binding  now?  3.  James  quoted  so 
much  as  was  applicable  to  his  subject,  either  from  the  deca* 


392  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTI8M  KENOUNCED. 

logue  or  from  the  other  books,  without  thereby  binding 
either  upon  us.  4.  *'The  law  of  liberty,"  verse  12,  is  the 
law  of  the  New  Testament.  Wesley  says:  "Law  of  liberty 
— the  gospel."  Notes  on  verse  12.  Adam  Clarke  says  : 
"The  law  of  liberty,  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  On  verse 
12.  Every  quotation  in  this  text  is  taken  from  the  words 
of  Christ  in  the  gospels.  See  Matt.  19  :  18,  19. 

1  John  2:  3-6.     This  is  the  ten  commandments. 

So  Adventists  always  apply  it,  and  then  make  all  liars  who 
do  not  keep  the  seventh  day.  Answer:  1.  Does  it  say 
that  these  are  the  ten  commandments  ?  This,  as  usual,  is 
assumed.  2.  The  context  plainly  shows  that  the  command- 
ments of  Christ  are  meant.  Read  verses  1  to  5  and  notice 
that  it  is  Christ  who  is  spoken  of.  Hence  "  his  command- 
ments" are  Christ's  commandments.  There  is  no  reference 
to  the  decalogue. 

1  John  3:  4.     Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law. 

From  this  text  Seventh-Day  Adventists  claim  that  all  sins 
of  every  kind  are  a  violation  of  the  ten  commandments 
which  is  the  law  here  meant.  Answer:  1.  Does  it  say  that 
this  law  is  the  ten  commandments  ?  No,  nor  any  hint  of 
such  a  thing.  Here,  as  ever,  they  assume  the  very  thing  to 
be  proved.  2.  The  decalogue  was  not  given  till  Moses, 
2500  years  after  the  creation.  Ex.  20.  Deut.  5:  2-6.  But 
sin  existed  all  that  time.  The  angels  sinned,  2  Pet.  2:  4; 
Adam  sinned,  Rom.  5:  12;  the  Sodomites  sinned.  Gen.  13: 
13;  "the  Gentiles  which  have  not  the  law,"  Rom.  2:  12-14, 
sinned;  hence  sin  is  something  more  than  a  violation  of  the 
decalogue.  A  neglect  to  do  good  is  sin,  James  4:  17,  but 
that  would  not  violate  the  decalogue.  Unbelief  is  sin,  Rom. 
14:  23,  but  that  is  no  transgression  of  the  decalogue.  So, 
many  are  damned  because  they  neglected  to  feed  the  hungry, 
give  drink  to  the  thirsty,  take  in  the  stranger,  clothe  the 
aaked,  or  visit  the  sick,  Matt.  25:  41-43,  none  of  which  are 


SPECIAL  TEXTS   EXAMINED.  393 

mentioned  in  the  decalogue.  John  says,  "All  unrighteous^ 
ness  [unrightness,  wrong]  is  sin."  1  John  5:  17.  There 
are  scores  of  wrongs  which  the  decalogue  does  not  notice 
at  all.  3.  The  decalogue  ended  at  the  cross,  2  Cor. 
3:  7;  Rom.  10:  4,  so  it  can  not  condemn  sin  now.  4.  In 
the  original  of  1  John  3:  4,  the  word  law  does  not  occur  at 
all.  Thus:  "  Sin  is  lawlessness,"  Revised  Version.  "  Sin 
is  iniquity,"  Diaglott.  "All  sin  is  iniquity,"  Syriac.  "Sin 
is  wickedness,"  Sawyer's  Translation.  "  Sin  is  the  lawless- 
ness," literal  Greek.  This  is  the  correct  idea.  So  a  correct 
translation  entirely  spoils  this  text  for  Adventists.  It  simply 
affirms  that  all  sin  is  iniquity,  wickedness  or  lawlessness,  a 
disregard  of  law,  without  any  necessary  reference  to  the 
decalogue. 

1  John  3:  22.     The  ten  commandments  again. 

The  same  old  assumption  again,  viz. ,  that  '  'the  command- 
ments" are  always  the  ten  commandments.  But  the  next 
verse  explodes  this  hobby  by  naming  what  is  meant.  "And 
this  is  his  commandment,  That  we  should  believe  on  the 
name  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  love  one  another,  as  he 
gave  us  commandment."    This  is  not  the  decalogue  at  all. 

Rev.  12:  17.     The  remnant  keep  the  commandments. 

This  text  shows  that  the  remnant,  the  last  state  of  the 
church,  will  keep  the  ten  commandments,  hence  the  Sabbath. 
Answer.  1.  This  occurs  under  the  dragon^  which  Seventh- 
Day  Adventists  say  is  Pagan  Rome.  But  Pagan  Rome 
passed  away  more  than  1,300  years  ago,  as  they  admit.  So 
this  applies  ages  ago,  not  to  the  present.  2.  Does  it  say 
that  "the  commandments"  are  the  ten  commandments  ? 
No,  nor  is  there  anything  to  intimate  it.  They  assume  this  as 
usual.  3.  Time  and  again,  all  through  the  New  Testament, 
other  things  are  called  "the  commandments."  Thus  the  two 
"great  commandments,"  Matt.  22:  36-40,  the  precepts  of 
Christ:  John  14: 15,  21;  15: 10;  13:  34;  Acts  1:  2;  the  Teach- 


394  SEVENTH-BAY  ADVENTTSM  RE^T^OItnOED. 

ings  of  the  apostles,  1  Cor.  14:  37;  1  ThesSc  4:  2;  2  Pet.  8: 
2,  etc.  It  is  far  more  probable  that  these  are  referred  to  in- 
stead of  the  old  law  which  was  abolished. 

Rev.  14:  12.     See  notes  on  Chap.  12:  17,  above. 

Rev.  22:  14.  Do  his  commandments. 

1.  If  the  common  version  is  correct,  the  remarks  on 
Rev.  12:  17,  will  apply  here  the  same.  2.  But  in  the  cor- 
rect reading  there  is  nothing  said  about  the  commandments. 
The  revised  version  gives  it  thus:  '^Blessed  are  they  that 
wash  their  robes."  So  the  American  Bible  Union,  the 
Diaglott,  etc.  Hence  this  text  has  no  bearing  on  the 
subject. 

Thus  we  have  examined  every  text  from  Gensis  to  Revela- 
tion on  which  Sabbatarians  rely  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  law 
and  the  Sabbath.  1.  To  say  the  very  least,  all  these  texts  are 
capable  of  a  different  interpretation  from  what  they  give 
them;  they  do  not  necessarily  mean  what  Adventists  say.  2. 
I  feel  confident  that  we  have  fairly  and  conclusively  proved 
that  they  do  not  teach  what  Adventists  claim. 

For  myself,  I  feel  profoundly  impressed  that  the  Sab- 
batarian theory  is  built  all  the  way  through  upon  a  narrow, 
forced,  and  unnatural  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  one  thai 
cannot  stand  the  test  of  fair  criticism.  The  more  I  study  it 
the  more  apparent  these  facts  become  to  me.  I  am  devoutij' 
thankful  to  God  that  he  has  led  me  out  of  that  error. 


CHAPTER  X:XIL 

THE  NATURE  OF  MAN. 

On  this  subject  I  shall  make  only  a  brief  argument,  sim- 
ply calling  attention  to  some  of  the  main  points. 

That  man's  spirit  survives  the  death  of  his  body,  and  lives 
in  a  conscious  state,  has  been  so  generally  believed  by  all 
people  in  all  ages  that  we  may  fairly  call  it  universal.  In 
this,  the  most  barbarous  and  the  most  enlightened  nations 
have  agreed.  Nor  has  the  increasing  intelligence  of  the  ad- 
vancing generations  lessened  this  belief,  but  rather  has  con- 
firmed it.  The  most  profound  thinkers  of  the  race  have 
held  this  faith.  Though  this  fact  is  not  decisive,  yet  it  does 
have  much  weight. 

So  this  doctrine  has  been  the  universal  faith  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  in  all  ages.  The  exceptions  to  this  have  been 
few  and  always  regarded  as  heretical.  This  fact  is  justly 
entitled  to  great  weight.     It  should  not  be  lightly  regarded. 

The  Jews  who  had  for  so  many  ages  enjoyed  the  benefits 
of  God's  revelations,  also  believe  that  the  spirit  lived  after 
the  death  of  the  body. 

The  Apocrypha  gives  the  views  of  the  Jews  just  before 
the  time  of  Christ.  Here  are  a  few  verses:  The  wicked 
shall  '^endure  eternal  torture  by  fire  "  4  Maccab.  9:  9.  "The 
divine  vengeance  is  reserving  you  for  eternal  fire  and 
torments,  which  shall  cling  to  you  for  all  time."  Chap.  12: 
12.  •  "Let  us  not  fear  him  who  thinketh  be  killeth;  for  great 
is  the  trial  of  soul  and  danger  of  eternal  torment  laid  up  for 
those  who  transgress."     Chap.  13:  li.     Of  the  martyrs  it  is 

(396) 


396  SEVENTH-DAY   ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

said:  ^'Through  which  also  they  now  stand  beside  the  divine 
throne,  and  live  a  blessed  life."  Chap„  17:  18.  ''The  chil- 
dren of  Abraham,  with  their  victorious  mother,  are  assem- 
bled together  to  the  choir  of  their  fathers,  having  received 
pure  and  immortal  souls  from  God."  Chap.  18:  23.  "The 
tja^ant  Antiochus  was  both  punished  upon  earth  and  is 
punished  now  he  is  dead."     Verse  5. 

These  plainly  show  that  the  Jews  believed  in  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  the  conscious  state  of  the  dead,  and  eternal 
punishment. 

So  the  Jewish  historian,  Josephus,  who  lived  when  Paul 
did,  plainly  states  that  the  body  of  the  Jews  believed  in  the 
immortality  of  souls.     Of  the  Pharisees  he  says: 

"They  also  believe  that  souls  have  an  immortal  vigor  in 
them."  Antiquities,  Book  18,  Chapter  1.  Again:  "  They 
say  that  all  souls  are  incorruptible:  but  that  the  souls  of 
good  men  only  are  removed  into  other  bodies:  but  that  the 
souls  of  bad  men  are  subject  to  eternal  punishment."  Wars, 
Book  2,  Chapter  8.  Of  another  Jewish  sect,  the  Essens,  he 
says  :  "They  teach  the  immorality  of  souls."  Antiq., 
Book  18,  Chap.  1.  Further:  "Their  doctrine  is  that  bodies 
are  corruptible  and  that  the  matter  they  are  made  of  is  not 
permanent;  but  that  the  souls  are  immortal  and  continue 
forever;  and  that  they  come  out  of  the  most  subtile  air,  and 
are  united  to  their  bodies  as  to  prisons,  into  which  they  are 
drawn  by  a  certain  natural  enticement.  But  that  when  they 
are  set  free  from  the  bonds  of  the  flesh,  they  then,  as  released 
from  a  long  bondage,  rejoice  and  mount  upwards."  Wars, 
Book  2,  Chap.  8.  Of  the  Sadducees  he  says:  "But  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Sadducees  is  that  souls  die  with  the  bodies." 
Antiq.,  Book  18,  Chap.  1.  Again:  "They  also  take  away 
the  belief  of  the  immortal  duration  of  the  soul  and  the  pun- 
ishments and  rewards  in  Hades."     Wars,  Book  2,  Chap.  8. 

Jo8ep^»us  s»vs  muob  nnore  m  ^W  j^-^rpp  i'*^e,  so  that  t^ere 


THE   NATURE   OF  MAN.  397 

can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  belief  of  the  Jews  at  that  time,  for 
he  was  one  of  them  and  knew  well  their  doctrines.  He  says 
that  they  believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  con- 
scious state  of  the  dead,  and  eternal  punishment.  The  efforts 
of  annihilationists  to  deny  this  are  uncandid  and  futile. 

THE  FAITH  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH. 

The  early  Christian  church  held  to  the  same  doctrine. 
The  martyrs  are  represented  at  death  as  going  immediately 
to  heaven.  "They  hastened  to  Christ,"  says  Eusebius,  Eccl. 
Hist.  Book  5,  Chap.  1.  He  says  that  another  at  death  "re- 
ceived the  crown  of  immortality."  Same  chapter.  Again: 
"With  peace  they  departed  to  God."  Book  5,  Chap.  2. 
Of  one  who  died  at  the  same  time  with  another  he  says  that 
it  was  "to  attach  himself  to  the  former  as  his  companion  on 
the  way  to  heaven."  Book  of  Martyrs,  Chap.  11.  Of  the 
martyrs  who  had  died  he  says  :  "  Being  transferred  to  the 
heavens  themselves  and  to  the  paradise  of  celestial  pleasures." 
Book  10,  Chap.  1. 

Writing  of  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  Eusebius 
says:  "But  about  this  time,  also,  other  men  sprung  up  in 
Arabia  as  the  propagators  of  false  opinions.  These  asserted 
that  the  human  soul,  as  long  as  the  present  state  of  the 
world  existed,  perished  at  death  and  died  with  the  body,  but 
that  it  would  be  raised  again  with  the  body  at  the  time  of 
resurrection."  Book  6,  Chap.  37.  It  will  be  seen  that 
these  heretics  held  the  same  doctrine  as  the  Adventists. 
They  were  set  down  in  those  early  days  as  "  propagators  of 
false  opinions,"  the  same  as  now. 

ONLY  A    SICKLY  PLANT. 

Occasionally,  here  and  there,  along  in  the  history  of  the 
church,  men  have  arisen  advocating  the  sleep  of  the  soul 
and  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked.     But  the  doctrine  has 


398  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

not  met  with  favor,  has  been  received  by  but  few,  has  had 
a  siekly  existence,  and  has  soon  disappeared. 

My  long  acquaintance  with  it  convinced  me  that  it  does 
not  bear  the  fruits  which  Adventists  claim  for  it.  They  say 
that  a  belief  in  this  doctrine  will  save  men  from  infidelity, 
Spiritualism,  Universalism,  etc.  I  found  it  far  otherwise. 
A  larger  proportion  have  gone  into  infidelity,  Spiritualism, 
and  Universalism  from  Seventh-Day  Adventists  than  from 
any  other  church  with  which  I  am  acquainted.  The  number 
has  been  fearfully  large  and  is  increasing.  Where  they  have 
converted  one  infidel,  they  have  made  several.  I  often  no- 
ticed that  infidels  and  opposers  of  the  church  were  greatly 
pleased  with  our  attack  upon  the  orthodox  faith  and  that 
they  would  go  away  strengthened  in  their  unbelief  and 
hatred  of  the  church.  This  created  doubts  in  my  mind  as 
to  the  utility  of  teaching  that  doctrine.  I  noticed  also  that 
such  men  as  Wesley,  Whitefield,  Edwards,  Spurgeon, 
Moody  and  others  who  have  uncompromisingly  preached 
eternal  punishment,  have  been  the  most  successful  in  win- 
ning souls  and  converting  skeptics  to  God. 

I  also  saw  that  this  doctrine  in  the  hands  of  the  Adventists 
led  to  strife,  contention,  discussion,  and  argument,  to  the 
loss  of  piety  and  devotion.  It  naturally  catches  men  of  that 
turn  of  mind,  instead  of  the  humble  and  devout.  Hence, 
on  the  whole,  I  saw  no  good  in  it. 

The  Adventists  assert  that  the  doctrine  of  the  conscious 
state  of  the  dead  leads  into  Spiritualism.  But,  as  stated 
above,  facts  refute  this,  as  more  in  proportion  to  their  num- 
bers go  into  this  error  from  the  Adventists  than  from  the 
evangelical  churches.  These  churches  strongly  hold  other 
doctrines  which  utterly  forbid  their  embracing  Spiritualism. 
Further,  the  Bible  forbids  seeking  to  the  dead  and  states 
plainly  that  they  know  nothing  of  things  on  the  earth.  See 
Deut.  18:  9-12;  Job  14:  21;  Eccl.  9:  5,  6;  Luke  16:  19-31. 


THE   Nx\TURE   OF  MAN,  399 

Hence,  after  forty  years'  effort,  Spritualism  has  made  no 
more  impression  upon  the  church  than  other  errors  have,  nor 
is  there  any  prospect  that  it  will  in  the  future. 

THE   CHIEF   STRENGTH   OF   THE   DOCTRINE. 

That  which  weighs  the  most  with  believers  in  the  sleep  of 
the  dead  and  annihilation  is  the  rational  argument.  Many 
texts  of  scripture  are  decidedly  against  them  and  they  feel 
it;  but  these  must  be  explained  away  because  the  orthodox 
doctrine  is  not  reasonable.  So  far  as  we  can  see,  nothinsr 
remains  alive  of  the  man  that  dies.  Hence  Adventists  assert 
that  death  ends  all.  But  this  does  not  necessarily  follow. 
The  most  powerful  agencies  in  the  universe  are  invisible. 
God  himself  is  "invisible."  1  Tim.  1:  17.  Adventists  be- 
lieve that  angels  and  devils  are  constantly  around  us;  yet 
w^e  never  see  them.  Air  envelops  us  on  every  side;  yet  we 
never  can  see  it.  Even  water  converted  into  steam  becomes 
invisible.  Take  heat,  electricity,  and  gravitation,  the  most 
powerful  agents  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  and  they  are 
invisible.  Who  has  ever  seen  gravitation  ?  We  see  it  pull 
the  apple  from  the  tree,  the  giant  oak  with  a  crash  to  the 
ground,  and  hold  the  vast  earth  in  its  place  around  the  sun; 
but  the  thing  itself  we  never  see.  What  is  light  ?  None 
can  tell. 

After  the  study  of  ages,  the  profoundest  scientists  are  un- 
able to  tell  what  life  is  even  in  its  lowest  form,  in  the  sim- 
plest plant.  We  know  it  exists  :  w^e  see  its  effects:  and  we 
see  when  it  departs;  but  what  it  is,  whence  it  came,  and 
whither  it  has  gone  none  can  tell.  Before  these  unsolved 
problems  the  greatest  minds  stand  dumb  and  reverently 
acknowledge  the  unsearchable  wisdom  of  God. 

But  of  all  the  profound  mysteries  of  creation,  the  greatest 
is  that  of  the  human  soul,  the  thinking  part  of  man.  What 
is  thought !     It  can  not  be  seen,  nor  heard,  neither  weighed 


400       SEVENTH-BAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

nor  measured.  We  can  not  say,  it  is  so  high,  or  so  wide,  OT 
so  long,  or  round,  or  square.  How  then  can  we  affirm  that 
the  mind  or  the  spirit  can  not  exist  separate  from  the  flesh 
and  bones  simply  because  we  can  not  see  it  go  away!  Such 
reasoning  is  only  superficial  guess-work.  As  we  have  seen, 
it  would  deny  the  existence  of  God,  angels,  devils  and  the 
greatest  forces  in  nature,  as  heat,  electricity,  gravitation,  the 
principle  of  life,  etc.  God  only  can  tell  us  about  the  soul 
and  its  nature.  Hence  this  is  a  question  which  can  only  be 
settled  by  the  Bible. 

So  the  great  argument  for  annihilation  is  that  it  is  un- 
reasonable that  God  should  allow  sin  and  sinners  always  to 
exist  as  a  blot  on  his  creation.  But  the  same  argument 
would  prove  that  an  Almighty  God  of  purity  and  love  would 
never  have  suffered  sin  to  enter  his  fair  creation;  or  having 
entered,  that  he  would  immediately  annihilate  it.  But  stub- 
born facts  refute  this  reasoning.  Sin  and  sinners  are  here. 
They  have  been  here  ever  since  the  world  began,  age  after 
age.  God  did  not  blot  out  sin  nor  sinners  as  soon  as  they 
appeared,  nor  has  he  manifested  special  haste  to  bring  them 
to  an  end.  Millions  of  sinners  he  suffers  to  live  on,  not  only 
to  no  purpose  so  far  as  their  own  salvation  is  concerned,  nor 
as  a  warning  to  others;  but,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  their  ex- 
ample hardens  others  in  sin  and  introduces  millions  more 
into  the  world  as  vile  as  themselves.  Even  the  fallen  angels, 
who  are  not  on  probation,  whose  lives  can  bring  no  good  to 
themselves,  but  who  live  only  to  lead  others  aw^ay  from 
God,  these  he  has  permitted  to  live  on  for  thousands  of 
years. 

Who  can  affirm  that  what  God  has  thus  permitted  for 
thousands  of  years,  ever  since  creation  began,  so  far  as  we 
know,  he  can  not  permit  for  ages  to  come,  and  always  ? 
We  can  say  that  it  would  not  be  according  to  our  ideas  of 
wisdom  and  right.     Well,  has  the  past  been  according  to 


THE   NATURE   OF  MAN.  401 

our  ideas  ?  Is  the  present  as  we  would  have  it  ? 
No  ;  then  this  explodes  that  argument.  Till  we 
have  infinite  wisdom  we  had  best  be  careful  how  we 
8it  in  judgment  on  God's  ways.  Could  we  bring  together 
and  see  in  one  place  all  the  sinning,  all  the  pain,  suffering, 
woe  and  anguish,  tears  and  misery  in  our  eaith  to-day,  it 
would  be  as  horrible  as  hell  itself.  Yet  God  sees  it  all  and 
permits  it  to  go  right  on.  Did  we  not  know  it  to  be  a  fact, 
we  would  pronounce  it  to  be  irreconcilable  with  the  attri 
butes  of  God.  We  simply  and  devoutly  accept  what  we 
can  not  explain.  Eternal  punishment  presents  no  harder 
problem,  and  hence  may  be  true,  all  our  finite  reasonings  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

Adventists  deKght  to  picture  hell  with  all  the  horrors  of 
literal  fire,  roasting,  torture,  etc.,  and  then  represent  that 
this  is  just  what  orthodox  churches  believe.  But  no  one 
believes  or  teaches  such  things.  Material  things  of  earth 
are  used  to  represent  spiritual  things  of  the  other  world. 
Hence  it  is  fire  in  one  place,  outer  darkness  in  another, 
worms  in  another,  banishment  in  another,  to  be  cut  in  two 
or  asunder  in  another,  etc.  We  do  not  claim  to  know  ex- 
actly what  it  will  be,  only  that  it  will  be  a  fearful  state  of 
eternal  punishment. 

SCRIPTUKE    STATEIVIENTS. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  there  is  an  intelligent  spirit  in  man, 
which  exists  in  a  conscious  state  after  the  death  of  the  body. 
What  is  a  spirit  ?  Jesus  said,  "  God  is  a  spirit.''  John  4: 
24;  and,  "A  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones."  Luke  24:  39. 
Here,  then,  is  one  intelligent,  conscious,  immortal  spirit 
which  has  neither  fle^^h  nor  bones.  Paul  says  that  he  is  "the 
Father  of  spirits,"  Heb.  12:  9,  in  contrast  with  the  "fathers 
of  our  flesh."  If  he  is  the  Father  of  spirits,  then,  necessa- 
rily, these  must  partake  of  his  nature.     Hence  Jesus  says: 


i02  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

''That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  and  that  which  is 
born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  John  3:  6.  Notice  the  marked 
contrast  between  flesh  and  spirit.  They  are  of  different 
natures.  Isaiah  says:  "  The  Egyptians  are  men,  not  God; 
and  their  horses ^^^A  and  not  spirit.''^  As  God  is  superior 
to  man,  so  spirit  is  superior  to  flesh.  God  is  the  Father  of 
our  spirits  but  certainly  not  of  our  flesh.  Hence  Paul  says: 
"We  are  the  ofispring  of  God."  Acts  IT:  29.  Our  spirits, 
then,  are  from  a  different  source,  and  of  a  higher  nature  than 
our  bodies. 

So  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  third  person  in  the  Trinity,  is  an 
intelligent,  immortal  spirit,  without  flesh  or  bones.  He  ap^ 
peared  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  Matt.  3:  16,  and  at  Pente- 
cost, Acts  2:  2-4;  he  teaches  and  guides  us,  John  14:  26;  16: 
10.     Here,  then,  is  another  immortal  spirit. 

The  angels  are  conscious,  intelligent  persons,  yet  they  are 
spirits.  "Who  maketh  his  angels  spirits."  Heb.  1:  7.  So 
the  devils  are  spirits;  yet  they  are  intelligent  persons  and  do 
not  die.  See  Mark  5:  1-13.  Here  a  man  with  an  unclean 
spirit  met  Jesus  and  knew  him.  He  talked  with  Jesus  and 
said  there  were  many  of  them  in  the  man.  Jesus  sent  them 
out  of  the  man  into  the  swine.  This  shows  that  they  can 
exist  in  a  body  or  out  of  a  body  and  still  be  alive  and  intelli- 
gent in  both  cases.  This  shows  that  spirits  are  intelligent 
persons,  not  merely  air,  or  breath,  or  an  influence,  as  Ad- 
ventists  try  to  prove.  So  in  1  Kings  22:21,  22,  "There 
came  forth  a  spirit  and  stood  before  the  Lord  and  said,  1 
will  persuade  him,"  Ahab.     The  Lord  told  him  to  go. 

We  have  seen  from  Josephus  that  the  Pharisees  believed 
in  the  immortality  of  the  soul;  and  that  the  spirit  lived  after 
the  death  of  the  body.  On  this  question  Paul  declared  he 
was  a  Pharisee.  "  But  when  Paul  perceived  that  the  one 
part  were  Sadducees,  and  the  other  Pharisees,  he  cried  out  in 
the  council.  Men  and  brethren,  1  am  a  Pharisee,  the  son  of 


THE  NATURE  OF  MAN.  403 

a  Pharisee;  of  the  hope  and  resurrection  of  the  dead  I  am 
called  in  question.  And  when  he  had  so  said,  there  arose  a 
dissension  between  the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees:  and  the 
multitude  was  divided.  For  the  Sadducees  say  that  there  is 
no  resurrection,  neither  angel,  nor  spirit:  but  the  Pharisees 
confess  both."  Acts  23:  6-8.  The  Pharisees  believed  in  the 
resurrection,  in  angels  and  in  spirits,  and  so  did  Paul.  Ad- 
ventists  believe  the  first  two  and  deny  the  third.  Paul  enu- 
merates several  things  in  heaven  as  ''Mount  Si  on,"  "the 
heavenly  Jerusalem,"  the  '' angels,"  *' God  the  judge," 
"Jesus,"  and,  finally,  "the  spirits  of  just  men."  Heb.  12: 
22-24.  All  these  texts  and  many  more  like  them,  prove 
that  a  spirit  is  an  intelligent  being,  without  flesh  or  bones, 
living  and  acting  the  same  as  men  in  the  body. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  man  has  a  spirit  like  these.  Thus: 
'There  is  a  spirit  in  man."  "The  spirit  within  me  con- 
gtrainethme."  Job  32:  8,  18.  "The  Lord  *  *  *  formeth 
the  spirit  of  man  within  him."  Zech.  12:  1.  It  is  spoken  of 
as  a  distinct  entity,  distinguished  from  the  body.  This 
spirit  is  not  dependent  upon  the  body  for  life,  but  rather  the 
body  is  dependent  upon  it.  "The  body  without  the  spirit  is 
dead."  James  2:  26.  Everywhere  the  spirit  is  recognized 
as  superior  to  the  body.  This  spirit  in  man  knows  and 
thinks.  "What  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the 
spirit  of  a  man  which  is  in  him  ?"  1  Cor.  2:11.  Then  the 
spirit  thinks,  reasons,  knows.  Again:  "The  spirit  indeed 
is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak."  Matt.  26:  41.  So  it  is 
the  spirit  that  wills.  "My  spirit  made  diligent  search." 
Fs.  77:  6.     Then  it  is  the  thinking  part  of  man. 

The  spirit  does  not  die  with  the  body.  Not  once  in  all 
the  Bible  is  it  said  or  intimated  that  the  spirit  ever  dies, 
while  it  is  distinctly  stated  that  it  does  not  go  down  to  dust 
with  the  body.  "Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as 
It  was;  and  the  spirit  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it." 


404  SEVENTH-DAir   ADVENTISM  RENOUNCED. 

Eccl.  12:  7.  This  is  plain  enough.  Again:  "Who  knoweth 
the  spirit  of  man  that  goeth  upward,  and  the  spirit  of  the 
beast  that  goeth  downward  to  the  earth?"  Eccl.  3:  21. 
Man's  spirit,  then,  goes  up  to  God.  The  body  can  be  de- 
stroyed without  destroying  the  spirit.  '^For  the  destruction 
of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved."  1  Cor,  5:  5. 
David  says:  "It  is  soon  cut  ofi'and  we  fly  away."  Ps.  9:10. 
Yes,  we  fly  away. 

The  case  of  the  thief  on  the  cross  can  never  be  fairly  har- 
monized with  the  sleep  of  the  soul  at  death.  "And  he  said 
unto  Jesus,  Lord,  remember  me  when  thou  comest  into  thy 
kingdom.  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  '  Verily  I  say  unto 
thee,  to-day  shall  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise.'  "  Luke  23: 
42,  43.  All  sorts  of  eflbrts  are  made  to  get  around  the  plain 
meaning  of  this  text.  But  they  are  futile.  Jesus  plainly 
said,  "Today  shall  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise."  If  he 
w^ent  to  paradise  that  df<y,  then  all  Christians  go  there  at 
death.  His  body  did  not  go  to  paradise,  for  it  was  buried. 
Hence  his  spirit  did  live  and  go  there.  Immediately  after 
this  Jesus  said,  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend 
my  spirit,"  verse  46.  His  spirit  went  with  the  thief  to  para- 
dise that  day.  So  the  dying  Stephen  said,  "Lord  Jesus,  re- 
ceive my  spirit."  Acts  7:  59.  This  doctrine  of  the  survival 
of  the  spirit  is  all  through  the  Bible. 

The  Bible  represents  the  body  as  the  tabernacle  or  temple 
in  which  the  man  lives.  Jesus  said,  "  Destroy  this  temple, 
and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  "He  spake  of  the 
temple  of  his  body."  John  2:  19,  21.  So  Peter  said,  "As 
long  as  I  am  in  this  tabernacle."  "I  must  put  ofi*  this 
my  tabernacle."  2  Pet.  1:  13,  14.  Paul  teaches  the 
same  doctrine.  "  Though  our  outward  man  perish,  yet 
the  inward  man  is  renewed  day  by  day."  2  Ccr.  4: 
16.  There  is,  then,  an  inward  man  and  an  outward  man. 
The  inward  man  is  the  substantial  man,  the  one  that  does 


THE   NATURE   OF  MAN.  4:05 

not  perish.  Paul  proceeds:  '*  For  we  know  that,  if  our 
earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle  were  dissolved,  we  have  a 
building  of  God,  a  house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in 
the  heavens.  For  in  this  we  groan,  earnestly  desiring  to  be 
clothed  upon  with  our  house  which  is  from  heaven:  If  so 
be  that  being  clothed  we  shall  not  be  found  naked.  For  we 
that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do  groan,  being  burdened:  ^  "^  "^ 
Therefore  we  are  always  confident,  knowing  that,  whilst  we 
are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord  (for  we 
walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight):  We  are  confident,  I  say,  and 
Avilling  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to  be  present 
with  the  Lord."  2  Cor.  5:  1-8.  See  how  clear  is  Paul's 
statement:  "Our  earthly  house,"  "tabernacle,"  "in  the 
body,"  ''absent  from  the  body," etc.  Adventists  never  talk 
that  way.  At  home  in  the  body,  absent  from  the  Lord ;  but 
absent  from  the  body,  present  with  the  Lord.  It  is  only  by 
doing  violence  to  the  scriptures  that  this  text  can  be  mado 
to  harmonize  with  the  idea  of  the  sleep  of  the  soul. 

Again  hear  Paul.  ' '  I  knew  a  man  in  Christ  above  four- 
teen  years  ago  (whether  in  the  body,  I  cannot  tell;  or 
whether  out  of  the  body,  I  cannot  tell:  God  knoweth),  such 
a  one  caught  up  to  the  third  heaven.  x\nd  I  knew  such  a 
man  (whether  in  the  body,  or  out  of  the  body,  I  cannot  tell: 
God  knoweth),  how  that  he  was  caught  up  into  paradise, 
and  heard  unspeakable  words,  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  a 
man  to  utter."  2  Cor.  12:  2-4.  Then  Paul  believed  a  man 
could  be  out  of  his  body  and  go  to  heaven  and  hear  words 
there.     Adventists  scout  such  ideas. 

The  following  text  is  so  plain  on  the  subject  of  the  con- 
scious state  of  the  dead,  that  Adventists  have  been  greatly 
perplexed  over  it.  They  have  tried  various  explanations, 
all  contradictory  and  none  satisfactory  to  themselves,  j 
have  been  there  and  know.  Paul  says:  "For  to  me  to  live  is 
Christ,  and  to  die  is  gain.     But  if  I  live  in  the  flesh,  this  is 


i06  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

the  fruit  of  my  labor:  yet  what  I  shall  choose  I  wot  not. 
For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  having  a  desire  to  depart, 
and  to  be  with  Christ;  which  is  far  better:  Nevertheless  to 
abide  in  the  flesh  is  more  needful  for  you."  Phil.  1:  21-24. 
"To  die  is  gain,"  "a  desire  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ,"  "1 
live  in  the  flesh,"  '^abide  in  the  flesh" — this  was  Paul's  faith. 
He  was  in  a  strait  betwixt  two,  whether  to  remain  in  the 
flesh  and  preach  Christ  and  aid  his  brethren  or  depart  and  be 
with  Christ.    How  utterly  contrary  to  Adventist  ideas  this  is. 

See  the  same  doctrine  so  definitely  taught  in  the  case  of 
the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  Luke  16:  19-31.  "And  it  came 
to  pass,  that  the  beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  the  angels 
into  Abraham's  bosom:  the  rich  man  also  died,  and  was 
buried;  and  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torments, 
and  seeth  Abraham  afar  ofi*,  and  Lazarus  in  his  bosom.  And 
he  cried  and  said,  'Father  Abraham,  have  mercy  on  me,  and 
send  Lazarus,  that  he  may  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water, 
and  cool  my  tongue;  for  I  am  tormented  in  this  flame.'  But 
Abraham  said,  'Son,  remember  that  thou  in  thy  lifetime  re- 
ceivedest  thy  good  things,  and  likewise  Lazarus  evil  things: 
but  now  he  is  comforted,  and  thou  art  tormented.  And  be- 
side all  this,  between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed: 
so  that  they  which  would  pass  from  hence  to  you  cannot; 
neither  can  they  pass  to  us,  that  would  come  from  thence.' 
Then  he  said,  'I  pray  thee  therefore  father,  that  thou  wouldst 
send  him  to  my  father's  house:  for  I  have  five  brethren;  that 
he  may  testify  unto  them,  lest  they  also  come  into  this  place 
of  torment. '  Abraham  saith  unto  him,  '  They  have  Moses 
and  the  prophets;  let  them  hear  them.'  And  he  said,  'Nay, 
father  Abraham:  but  if  one  went  unto  them  from  the  dead, 
they  will  repent.'  " 

1.  This  is  Christ's  own  teaching.  2.  As  we  have  seen, 
it  was  what  the  Pharisees  believed  with  regard  to  the  dead. 
3.     Jesus  accepts  and   confirms  their  doctrine.     4.  These 


THE   NATURE   OF   MAN.  407 

events  occured  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  while 
the  brethren  of  the  rich  man  were  yet  alive  on  earth.  5. 
Hence  immediately  after  death  and  before  the  resurrection 
the  rich  man  is  in  hell  and  Lazarus  is  rewarded.  6.  They 
are  both  conscious.  7.  Abraham  is  alive  over  there.  8. 
Both  think  and  talk.  Hence  the  dead  certainly  know  some- 
thing. Had  we  no  other  text,  this  alone  would  disprove  th« 
sleep  of  the  dead. 

Again  Jesus  said  God  is  "  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the 
God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob.  God  is  not  the  God 
of  the  dead,  but  of  the  livins^."  Matt.  22:  32.  Then  those 
patriarchs  are  alive  and  not  blotted  out  of  existence  at  death. 
Once  more:  ''  Fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are 
not  able  to  kill  the  soul."  Matt.  10:  28.  If  the  body  is  all 
there  is  of  the  man,  if  the  soul  is  simply  the  life  of  the  body, 
then  men  can  kill  the  soul.  But  Jesus  says  they  can  not 
kill  the  soul.  It  does  not,  then,  die  with  the  body.  How 
squarely  these  plain  texts  contradict  the  Adventist  faith;  yet 
they  claim  to  go  by  the  Bible.  So  we  find  Moses  on  the 
mount  with  Jesus,  though  he  had  died  and  was  buried  fifteen 
hundred  years  before,  Deut.  32.  "Behold,  there  appeared 
unto  them  Moses  and  Elias  talking  with  him."  Matt.  IT:  3. 
But  why  quote  more  ?     These  are  decisive. 

Many  of  the  texts  quoted  to  prove  the  sleep  of  the  soul 
refer  only  to  the  body.  Thus  Gen.  3:  19,  *'Dust  thou  art, 
and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."  This  can  not  refer  to  the 
spirit  which  has  neither  flesh  nor  bones,  Luke  24:  39,  but  re- 
turns to  God  at  death,  Eccl.  12:  7.  Read  their  proof  texts. 
"David  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  was  buried  in  the  city  of 
David."  1  Kings  2:  10.  Was  David's  spirit  buried?  "So 
man  lieth  down,  and  riseth  not.  *  "^  Oh,  that  thou 
wouldst  hide  me  in  the  grave."  Job  14: 12, 13.  Did  Job's 
spirit  lie  down  in  the  grave  ?  Was  it  hid  in  the  dust ! 
Hardly.     "If  I  wait,  the  grave  is  mine  house."    Job  17:13. 


4:0b  SEVENTH-DAY  ADVENTISM   RENOUNCED. 

Does  the  spirit  go  into  the  grave?  *'  There  is  no  work,  no 
device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom  in  the  grave  whithei 
thou  goest."  Eccl.  9:  10.  ''Many  of  them  that  sleep  in 
the  dust  of  the  earth."  Dan.  12:2.  ''Lazarus  sleepth," 
"Lazarus  is  dead."  "By  this  time  he  stinketh."  John  11: 
11,  14,  39.  Could  this  be  said  of  the  spirit  ?  Did  the  spirit 
of  Lazarus  decay  ?  Surely  not.  Take  their  favorite  text, 
Acts  2:  34.  "David  is  not  ascended  into  the  heavens." 
The  context  shows  plainly  that  this  is  said  of  the  body. 
"He  is  both  dead  and  buried  and  his  sepulcher  is  with  us." 
"  He  spake  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ."  Verses  29,  31. 
So  in  1  Cor.  15,  the  several  expressions  about  being  asleep 
are  all  explained  by  the  subject  discussed — the  resurrection 
of  the  body.  1  Thess.  4:13-16,  is  explained  the  same  way. 
Paul  is  referring  to  the  resurrection.  That  whole  class  of 
texts  refers  only  to  the  bodies  which  go  into  the  grave  at 
death.  As  the  spirit  does  not  go  there,  these  texts  have  no 
reference  to  it,  and  hence  prove  nothing  concerning  it.  One 
simple  text  explains  them  all :  "  The  graves  were  opened 
and  many  bodies  of  the  saints  which  slept  arose."  Matt. 
27:  52.  Yes,  graves,  bodies ^  slept — that  is  the  whole  of  it. 
Adventists  might  go  to  our  orthodox  hymn-books  and  select 
expressions  about  our  friends  being  asleep  and  in  their 
graves  and  thus  prove  that  we  all  believe  in  the  sleep  of  the 
soul.  But  it  would  be  false,  as  we  know  it  refers  only  to  the 
body. 

So  their  main  text,  Eccl.  9:  5-10,  "The  dead  know  not  any 
thing,"  is  limited  by  the  context  to  "  any  thing  that  is  done 
under  the  sun,"  verse  6.  Compare  this  with  other  texts 
where  the  same  expression  is  used.  "  With  Absolom  went 
two  hundred  men  *  *  *  They  went  in  their  simplicity, 
and  they  k?iew  not  any  thing.''''  2  Sam.  15:  11.  Another  : 
"But  the  lad  knew  not  any  thing/  only  Jonathan  and  David 
knew  the  matter."     1  Sam.  20:  39.     Of  a   self-conceited 


THE  NATURE  OF  MAN.  409 

teacher  Paul  says,  "He  is  proud,  knowing  nothing y 
1  Tim.  6  :  4.  Were  all  these  absolutely  without  thought 
or  consciousness  ?  No.  It  simply  means  that  they  knew 
nothing  about  the  things  mentioned.  So  of  Eccl.  9  :  5. 
The  context  explains  it.  "  Neither  have  they  any  more  a 
portion  forever  in  any  thing  that  is  done  under'  the  sun.^^ 
Yerse  6. 

Psalms  146  :  3,  4,  "  Put  not  your  trust  in  princes,  nor  in 
the  son  of  man,  in  whom  there  is  no  help.  His  breath 
goeth  forth,  he  returneth  to  his  earth ;  in  that  very  day 
his  thoughts  perish."  His  thoughts,  his  purposes.  The 
margin  of  the  Kevised  Version  reads  "  purposes."  The 
Greek  word  for  thoughts  is  dialogisinoi.  Greenfield  de- 
fines it  "  reasoning,  ratiocination,  thought,  cogitation,  ^^^r- 
pose.''^  If  we  rely  upon  earthly  princes,  when  they  die 
their  purposes  perish  and  we  are  left  helpless.  So  this 
text  is  easily  explained  as  are  also  the  few  remaining 
ones  which  are  used  to  teach  the  sleep  of  the  dead. 


Appendixes 


Appendix  A 

Battle  Creek,  Mich.,  furnishes  a  good  illustration  of 
the  failure  of  Adventism  after  a  fair  trial.  Beginning  in 
1855,  it  was  the  headquarters  of  the  denomination  for  about 
a  half  century.  It  was  the  home  of  Elder  White  and  wife. 
For  all  those  years  it  had  the  benefit  of  the  labours  of  all 
their  strongest  men,  and  the  influence  of  their  great  general 
conferences.  Here  were  built,  at  immense  cost,  their  great 
institutions,  as  their  large  publishing  houses,  their  college, 
their  great  sanitarium  of  world  renown,  their  large  taber- 
nacle, etc.  When  I  withdrew  iu  1887,  there  were  nearly 
two  fhousand  Sabbath  keepers  here,  all  united.  Often  I 
preached  in  that  great  tabernacle  when  every  seat,  below 
and  in  the  gallery,  was  full.  In  the  college  I  taught  one 
class  of  about  two  hundred,  aU  young  men  and  women 
preparing  to  work  either  as  ministers  or  Bible  readers. 
Now,  1914,  the  college  is  closed  and  lost  to  the  cause  ; 
the  sanitarium  has  revolted  from  the  denomination,  and 
nearly  all  the  management,  doctors,  nurses  and  helpers  are 
Sunday  keepers  ;  the  publishing  houses  were  burned  and 
the  remnant  moved  away  ;  the  church  has  dwindled  down 
to  about  four  or  five  hundred  ;  the  tabernacle  is  largely 
empty  and  an  elephant  on  their  hands  ;  three  separate  com- 
panies of  Sabbath  keepers  now  meet  every  Sabbath,  having 
no  connection  with  each  other.  Worse  still,  large  numbers 
have  backslidden,  lost  faith  in  everything,  and  attend  no 
where.     It  has  been  like  a  desolating  cyclone. 

411 


412  APPENDIXES. 

About  tweuty  years  ago  amoug  the  strongest  raeu  in  the 
ranks,  men  of  whom  the  whole  denomination  was  proud, 
were  Dr.  J.  H.  Kellogg,  head  of  the  sanitarium  ;  Elder 
A.  T.  Jones,  editor,  author,  minister,  orator  ;  Elder  E.  J. 
Waggoner,  editor,  author,  preacher  ;  Elder  Geo.  Tenney 
editor,  minister,  missionary  ;  Elder  L.  McCoy,  minister, 
chaplain  of  sanitarium  5  with  many  persons  in  important  po- 
sitions as  business  managers,  college  professors,  doctors,  etc. 
All  these  are  now  out  of  the  church,  and  all  their  influence 
is  against  the  body. 

What  has  happened  here  is  constantly  happening  all  over 
the  field  in  their  old  churches.  It  is  in  new  fields  and  for- 
eign lands  where  their  history  is  unknown,  that  their  chief 
gains  are  made.  I  can  name  large  numbers  of  churches 
all  over  the  land,  which  were  large,  strong  churches  thirty 
and  forty  years  ago.  Now  they  are  either  extinct  or  only  a 
little  handful  meeting  in  the  corner  of  an  old  church.  Such 
are Norridgewock,  Maine,  Danvers,  Mass.,  Memphis,  Wright, 
and  Monteray,  Mich.  ;  Knoxville,  Sigourney,  Winter  "set 
and  Osceola,  Iowa,  with  scores  of  smaller  churches  in  many 
of  the  states.  The  thing  does  not  wear.  If  the  past  is 
any  guide,  twenty  years  hence  many  of  their  strong  men 
now  will  leave  and  oppose  them,  and  many  of  their  best 
churches  will  go  down.  In  1912,  the  latest  statistics  avail- 
fable,  with  4,000  workers  in  the  field,  with  millions  of  money 
spent,  they  only  gained  4,000  in  membership  in  all  the  world, 
or  only  one  for  every  labourer  !  The  Review  and  Herald^ 
April  23,  1914,  says  :  ''  Take  1912  as  a  basis,  and  we  find 
that  it  cost  this  denomination  practically  from  $900  to  $1,000 
for  every  person  added  to  the  church  membership." 

How  does  this  compare  with  the  claims  that  theirs  is  the 
most  wonderful  message  the  world  ever  had  and  that  the 
power  of  God  is  with  them  as  with  no  other  people  ?  Cold 
facts  are  against  them. 


APPENDIXES.  413 

Appendix  B 

The  system  of  Seventh-Day  Adventism  rests  for  its  foun- 
dation on  the  unsupported  theories  of  an  uneducated  old 
farmer  in  his  last  days  and  the  reveries  of  a  totally  un- 
educated, unread,  sickly,  excitable  girl.  Wm.  Miller,  the 
founder  of  Adventism,  was  sixty-one  years  old  in  1843,  the 
year  he  set  for  the  end  of  the  world.  He  died  six  years 
later,  disappointed  and  confused.  He  had  only  a  limited 
country  schooling.  He  rejected  all  Biblical  helps  and  de- 
pended solely  upon  his  own  ideas  of  the  Bible.  See  ''Life 
of  Miller, "  by  James  White,  pages  46,  48,  59.  He  accepted 
as  infallibly  correct  the  dates  then  found  in  the  margin  of 
the  Bible.  These  were  arranged  by  Usher  according  to  the 
best  information  then  obtainable.  Later  investigations 
have  shown  these  dates  to  be  incorrect  by  many  years. 
Miller  based  all  his  figures  on  these  old  dates  and  fixed  by 
these  to  a  year,  the  beginning  and  ending  of  every  prophetic 
period  in  the  Bible  !  By  this  he  set  1843  for  the  end  of  the 
world  and  all  other  periods  to  fit  that  date,  such  as  the 
seventy  weeks,  the  2,300  days,  the  1,335  days,  the  1,290 
days,  the  1,260  days,  the  seven  churches,  seven  seals, 
trumx)ets,  etc.     He  said  all  were  absolutely  correct ! 

Then  came  the  present  Mrs.  White,  a  mere  girl,  wholly 
unacquainted  with  history  or  chronology,  and  set  her  seal 
to  all  Miller's  figures  and  dates,  said  not  one  must  be  al- 
tered. Hear  her:  "I  have  seen  that  the  1843  chart  was 
directed  by  the  hand  of  the  Lord  and  that  it  should  not  be 
altered,  that  the  figures  were  as  he  wanted  them."  "  Early 
Writings,"  page  64,  edition  of  1882.  By  these  dates  the 
whole  denomination  must  always  abide,  right  or  wrong ! 
So  their  whole  prophetic  system  rests  upon  the  figures  of  an 
old  farmer  and  an  ignorant  girl  made  seventy  years  ago  ! 
God  pity  them. 


414  APPENDIXES. 

Appendix  C 

The  fanatical  expectations  of  Adventists.  For  about  seventy 
years  Seventh-Day  Adventists  have  predicted  that  a  few 
months,  or  years,  before  the  end,  the  Holy  Ghost  would  be 
poured  out  upon  them  like  Pentecost.  They  call  it  ^'the 
latter  rain.''''  Then  will  occur  the  "  Loud  Cry  "  to  close  up 
the  work.  Now,  1914,  they  preach  and  publish  that  all 
this  has  begun  and  the  work  is  to  close  up  quickly  !  Of 
this  work  Mrs.  White  says:  ''Miracles  are  wrought,  the 
sick  are  healed,  and  signs  and  wonders  follow  the  believers.'^ 
"Great  Controversy,"  page  430,  edition  of  1884.  She  de- 
votes five  chapters  predicting  the  wonders  to  occur  just 
before  the  end.  Bead  them.  I  can  only  sketch  a  few 
items.  Satan  will  appear  personally  and  visibly  to  all,  in 
dazzling  glory,  claiming  that  he  is  Christ  come  to  earth. 
All  the  world  but  Adventists  accept  him  as  such.  He 
smiles  on  them  and  blesses  them.  All  shout  ' '  Christ  has 
come."  Then  Satan  tells  them  that  Adventists  are  wicked 
blasphemers  for  working  on  Sunday  and  must  all  be  killed. 
Pages  442,  443.     Bead  it. 

Spiritualism  has  taken  possession  of  all  the  churches, 
pages  405,  422  ;  church  and  state  have  united,  pages  423, 
424,  not  only  in  the  United  States,  but  ' '  throughout  all 
Christendom,"  page  444;  Satan  then  moves  all  legislative 
bodies  to  issue  an  edict  that  all  Sabbath  keepers  shall  be 
killed  and  exterminated  unless  they  recant  by  a  certain 
day.  "  No  man  may  buy  or  sell  '^  who  does  not  keep  Sun- 
day, page  422;  whoever  refuses  ''shall  be  put  to  death." 
Sabbath  keepers  "  will  be  thrust  into  prison,  some  will  be 
exiled,  some  will  be  treated  as  slaves."  Page 426.  "They 
are  threatened  with  destruction."  Page  427.  Adventists 
"  will  then  flee  from  the  cities  and  villages  and  associate  to- 
gether in  companies,  dwelling  in  the  most  desolate  and  soli- 
tary places."     Page  445.     "Many  of  all  nations  will  be 


APPENDIXES.  415 

cast  into  unjust  and  cruel  boudage  and  sentenced  to  be 
slain."  Page  445.  "  In  every  quarter  compauies  of  armed 
men,  urged  on  by  hosts  of  evil  angels,  are  preparing  for  the 
work  of  death,  with  shouts  of  triumph,  with  jeers  and  im- 
precations, they  are  about  to  rush  upon  their  prey. "  Page 
452. 

Jast  then  Christ  appears  and  144,000  Seventh-Day  Ad- 
ventists  are  caught  up  in  the  clouds  and  saved.  All  the 
rest  of  mankind,  worldlings,  Methodists,  Baptists,  and  all 
Sunday  keepei-s,  are  utterly  destroyed  !  This  is  what  Ad- 
ventists  believe  and  tciich.  Eead  the  above  quoted  book. 
Of  all  the  wild,  fanatical  theories  ever  preached  this  is  the 
climax.  To  bring  this  about  the  wheels  of  progress  would 
have  to  be  turned  back  a  thousand  years.  It  would  be  the 
most  miraculous  revolution  the  world  ever  saw,  and  all 
within  a  few  short  years!  It  is  to  be  world-wide — '■^ all 
nations.''''  Page  445.  India,  China,  Japan,  where  they  care 
nothing  for  Sunday,  will  decree  that  all  must  die  who  work 
that  day  I  The  trend  of  the  whole  world  is  exactly  the 
other  way, — separation  of  church  and  state,  greater  liberty 
of  thought,  greater  toleration  of  all  religious  beliefs,  and 
greater  laxity  of  Sunday  observance  ;  a  man  is  blind  who 
cannot  see  this. 


Appendix  D 

The  supremacy  of  the  pope,  not  Sunday,  is  the  *'  Mark  "  of 
the  papacy.  The  one  supreme  claim  of  the  papacy,  the  one 
all  essential  test  of  the  loyalty  of  every  Catholic,  the  one 
thing  which  every  Catholic  must  swear  to  when  he  joins 
that  church,  the  one  thing  above  all  others  insisted  upon  in 
all  catechisms  and  doctrinal  books,  is  the  supremacy  of  the 
pope  of  Rome.  No  one  can  be  a  Catholic  and  deny  this 
claim.  Subscribe  to  this,  and  all  else  follows.  During  the 
papal  supremacy  tens  of  thousands  were  martyred  because 


416  APPENDIXES. 

they  would  not  bow  to  the  authority  of  the  pope.  It  was 
this  that  brought  on  the  great  Keformatiou  under  Luther 
and  originated  the  name  Frotestant  It  is  what  all  Prot- 
estant churches  have  been  warning  against  for  three  hundred 
years.  The  test,  the  mark,  of  the  loyalty  of  a  Mohammedan 
is  to  acknowledge  the  supreme  authority  of  Mohammed  as 
a  prophet ;  of  a  Mormon,  to  acknowledge  J.  Smith  as 
God's  prophet ;  of  a  Christian  Scientist,  to  acknowledge 
the  authority  of  Mrs.  Eddy  ;  of  a  Catholic,  to  acknowledge 
the  authority  of  the  pope  of  Eome  as  supreme. 

In  this  city  we  have  several  Catholic  churches  and  scores 
of  other  churches  which  keep  Sunday.  Does  anybody 
think  of  these  churches  as  Catholic  because  they  keep  Sun- 
day ?  No.  Do  Catholics  think  of  them  as  Catholics  on  this 
account  ?  No.  Do  these  churches  themselves  ever  think  of 
themselves  as  Catholics  because  they  keep  Sunday?  'No. 
Is  it  then  a  marlc  of  a  Catholic  to  keep  Sunday  ?  No,  be- 
cause no  one,  either  Catholic,  Protestant,  worldling,  or  any 
one  else,  ever  thinks  of  it  as  the  mark  of  a  Catholic.  Hence 
as  nobody  in  the  church  or  out  ever  regards  a  person  as  a 
Catholic  because  he  keeps  Sunday,  that  cannot  be  the  mark 
of  a  papist. 

But  the  moment  any  person  acknowledges  the  authority 
of  the  pope  as  supreme,  every  one  regards  him  as  a  Cath- 
olic, a  papist.  And  the  Catholic  church  so  regards  him. 
But  if  he  simply  keeps  Sunday  and  denies  the  authority  of 
the  pope,  will  the  Catholic  church  accept  him  ?  Emphat- 
ically no.  Then  what  is  the  test,  the  mark,  of  a  papist  ?  It 
is  to  acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  the  pope  of  Eome. 
That  marks  him  as  a  Catholic. 

Thus  ''Johnson's  New  Universal  Encyclopaedia^'  says: 
"  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  that  body  of  Christians  which 
acknowledges  the  authority  of  the  pope  of  Eome."  The 
same  article  gives  the  creed  to  which  every  Catholic  must 
swear  obedience  thus  :  "  I  promise  and  swear  true  obedience 


APPENDIXES.  417 

to  the  JBishop  of  Eorne,  successor  of  St.  Peter,  Prince  of  the 
apostles,  aud  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ.'^ 

Here  you  have  the  mark  of  that  church.  It  is  uot  keeping 
Sunday,  but  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Pope.  Every 
Catholic  catechism  or  doctrinal  work  has  in  bold  letters  this 
headline  : 

*' Marks  of  the  Church.'^ 

Sunday  keeping  is  never  given  as  one  of  them,  but  the  su- 
premacy of  the  pope  is  always  given.     Mark  well  this  fact. 


Appendix  E 

The  following  statement  I  drew  up,  and  read  to  a  leading 
Catholic  priest  of  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  who  readily  signed 
it,  as  will  be  seen  below  : 

"  The  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  is 
this :  The  ajiostles,  by  instruction  from  Jesus  Christ, 
changed  the  Sabbath  from  Saturday  to  Sunday  to  com- 
memorate the  resurrection  of  Christ  aud  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  both  of  which  occurred  on  Sunday.  The 
change  was  made  by  the  apostles  themselves,  and  hence  by 
divine  authority,  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  church. 
There  are  references  to  this  change  in  Acts  20  :  7  ;  1  Cor. 
16  : 1,  2  ;  Eev.  1  :  10,  etc.  Yet  these  texts  do  not  state  posi- 
tively such  a  change  ;  hence  Catholics  go  to  the  statements 
of  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  where  this  change  by  the 
apostles  is  confirmed  aud  put  beyond  doubt.  Catholics  also 
rely  upon  tlie  tradition  of  the  church  which  says  that  the 
change  was  made  by  the  aj)ostles.  Catholics  never  teach 
that  the  change  of  the  day  was  made  by  the  church  two  or 
three  hundred  years  after  Christ.  Such  a  statement  would 
be  contrary  to  all  the  facts  of  history  and  the  traditions  of 
the  church. 

"The  Holy  Catholic  Church  began  with  the  apostles. 


418  APPENDIXES. 

St.  Peter  was  the  first  pope.  Hence,  when  they  say  that 
the  church  changed  the  Sabbath,  they  mean  that  it  was 
done  by  the  church  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Neither  the 
church  nor  the  pope,  two  or  three  hundred  years  after  the 
apostles,  had  anything  whatever  to  do  with  changing  the 
Sabbath,  for  the  change  had  been  made  ages  before.  Cath- 
olics do  not  call  the  first  day  of  the  week  the  Sabbath,  for 
that  was  Saturday  j  but  they  call  it  Sunday,  or  the  Lord's 
r>ay. 

"The  above  statement  by  Eev.  D.  M.  Canright  is  true  and 
pure  Catholic  doctrine.— Eev.  James  C.  Pulcher,  Pastor  of 
St.  James'  Church,  Grand  Rapids,  Mich." 

In  answer  to  my  question  Archbishop  Ireland  wrote  me 
thus : 

^^8t.  Faul^  March  2,  19 U. 
**My  dear  Sir  : — In  answering  your  question  I  would 
state  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  simply  a  positive  precept 
in  the  Mosaic  law  and  lapsed  with  that  law.  The  apostles 
and  early  Christians  instituted  the  Sunday  as  a  day  of 
special  prayer  in  honor  of  the  great  mysteries  of  the  Christian 
religion  :  the  resurrection  and  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit^ 
both  occurring  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

"  Very  sincerely, 

"John  Ireland." 

I  have  carefully  examined  the  "  Catholic  Encyclopsedia,'' 
the  "  Catholic  Dictionary,"  a  large  number  of  Catholic  cate- 
chisms, large  and  small,  and  all  agree  in  locating  the  change 
of  the  Sabbath  in  the  time  of  the  apostles  and  by  the  apos- 
tles. This  is  emphatically  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
church.  Not  a  single  Catholic  authority  ever  locates  the  change 
anywhere  else,  Adventists  are  unfair  in  omitting  this  fact 
when  they  quote  only  a  part  of  what  Catholics  say.  The 
above  Catholic  authorities  quote  Acta  20  :  7  ;  1  Cor.  16  :  2 ; 
Rev.  1 :  10,  the  same  as  Protestants  do  as  evidence  that  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  Day  originated  with  the  apostles. 

16  PRIMTBD  IN  THE   UNITEU  STATES   OF  AMBRtCA 


Date  Due 


^■V  r 


Princeton  Theologi' 


al  Seminary-Speer   Libtary 


1    1012  01003  2086 


